Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    75

    *sigh* - dormant domains

    Hello. I know this is probably a relatively pointless question, but I'll ask it anyway - is there any good way to wrestle a domain from someone that's not only using it for nothing, but isn't even serving up a WEBPAGE for it?

    Take the example of freebid.net. I'd like it but damned if the contact(s) for the domain will respond to enquiries, even though they're not using it!!!

    Or gemsgames.com. OK, it's being used for one of those !&^)(!^_!!$ generic links pages that IRRITATE ME SO MUCH but again no response from the damned listed contacts about purchasing it.

    This really angers me. I don't agree with the people here that say this is a good thing and nothing should be changed because it's the 'free market' - the free market doesn't always work well, and this is a great example of that. At least the cost of owning a domain should be raised to something like $100/year to strongly discourage this disgraceful behaviour of sitting on a domain and doing absolutely nothing with it, when it could be used for far more useful purposes.

    *sigh*

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,916
    Nope. Your just a couple days shy of the thread that hit this same subject. http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showth...hreadid=414308

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    75
    I know, I read it, and it irritates me when people say that this situation is perfectly acceptable and it's part of the 'free market'. True free market capitalism with no regulation is a very bad idea, and certain industries need regularion to benefit consumers. I think i'd classify the domain name market as one of these, whn you see people abusing the system so much. *sigh*... if I had my way...........

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,797
    I agree that it's sad that a lot of decent names are not used for better purposes, as parking domains with one of those pay per click programs isn't particularly useful to the rest of the world. I too agree that domain names *could* be a candidate for some regulation (like IP addresses) and not just another freely traded commodity. HOWEVER, I don't see any viable alternative that is able to replace the existing mechanism. A price hike does not work: it DID NOT work in the past (it WAS $100/2 yrs in 1995 when most of the premium names were registered) and will not work in the future. Just thinkg about the real estates market which is a VERY APPROPRIATE analogy.
    Co-Founder @HostHideout. Profoundly influenced by #Bauhaus, @Nameslave unrepentantly embraces #Minimalism with a bias for functionality, color theory and pixel precision: a #multimedia messenger in the McLuhan sense. His totally irrelevant M.Ed. dissertation examines Organizational Culture and Change Management. He also likes Patrik Ervell, Wong Kar-wai and IKEA.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    75
    I'm not sure I'd agree with that analogy at all. Real estate costs *serious money*, tens of thousands of $$$. You don't get bastards coming along and buying up half of the US for a few dollars, like you do with domains (how many 'premium' domains does buydomains own? 500,000? Now, tell me that isn't ludicrous.) I'm not sure you'd have the problem we have now *on this scale* if domains were significantly more expensive to register/renew than they are now.

    And as for another system, as you said, regulation. OK, it would take some effort, but so what? Hike the cost of a domain name to pay for it. Have the registries responsible for policing the system and have some sort of metrics that make sure people are using the domain name for something other than a generic links page; something genuinely purposeful. They could also investigate complaints made to them about certain domain names, as obviously it would be impossible for them to police *every* domain name. I'd be very happy to pay 2, maybe 3 times more for my domain names if it was to fund such a system. And, I'd have a couple more domain names under my belt, that I would make some use of.

  6. #6
    Originally posted by jez9999
    Have the registries responsible for policing the system and have some sort of metrics that make sure people are using the domain name for something other than a generic links page; something genuinely purposeful.


    The problem is determining what "metrics" are "acceptable" and
    "fair" to everyone. Mind you, what may be fair and acceptable to
    one may not be to another.

    Heck, you don't even agree with the free market system.

    If the lawyers and techies involved in domain name policies have
    great difficulty figuring that out, what more the average person
    like you and me?

    But to answer your original question, yes there is. And I'm sure
    you know what those methods are.

    Do domain names really have to have active websites to prove
    they have legitimate uses? My blog domain doesn't have a site
    for now, but I still use it for email.

    Incidentally there's an attorney well-known in the domain industry
    who's listed as the registrant for certain domain names (which for
    now makes him the owner) that have no active websites or email
    (though I'm not sure which one). But he's actually holding them
    for his clients.
    Last edited by Dave_Z; 06-18-2005 at 10:01 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    75
    Originally posted by davezan


    The problem is determining what "metrics" are "acceptable" and
    "fair" to everyone. Mind you, what may be fair and acceptable to
    one may not be to another.
    That would be the harder part of the system. I know this is a bit of a pointless debate, but I'm bored right now so what the hell. ;-) The question of where the line would be drawn would obviously be up for debate were such a scheme to be implemented, but I can tell you two obvious cases that would definitely be on each side of the line.
    A) Domain not used for anything, no valid www/email/* servers in the DNS records - domain must be made use of within 7 days or becomes available again.
    B) Domain used for regularly updated website - domain may be kept by registrant.

    But to answer your original question, yes there is. And I'm sure
    you know what those methods are.
    Erm, no I don't, or I wouldn't have asked. Do you mean a good method is 'e-mail current owner and pray they reply'? I don't consider that a 'good' method. A good method would be one whereby, if the listed contacts were dormant, they would lose the domain.

    Do domain names really have to have active websites to prove
    they have legitimate uses? My blog domain doesn't have a site
    for now, but I still use it for email.
    That's a borderline case. How I'd suggest the system dealt with that is to say that every domain HAD to have some webpage associated with it that resolved when you typed in the domain name. The domain doesn't have to be used as a website, but the webpage must tell you what it is actively used for and perhaps provide some proof. In your case, maybe a link saying 'look, here's an email address for this domain you can email with an autoresponder to prove the MX records are linked to a valid mail server'. I don't just propose these things out of thin air, I know pretty much how they'd work if I were able to reshape the system to my own ideal!

  8. #8
    Originally posted by jez9999
    That would be the harder part of the system. I know this is a bit of a pointless debate, but I'm bored right now so what the hell. ;-) The question of where the line would be drawn would obviously be up for debate were such a scheme to be implemented, but I can tell you two obvious cases that would definitely be on each side of the line.
    A) Domain not used for anything, no valid www/email/* servers in the DNS records - domain must be made use of within 7 days or becomes available again.
    B) Domain used for regularly updated website - domain may be kept by registrant.


    Not bad. But how many domain owners out there actually know
    that stuff?

    Unfortunately, not that many.

    Originally posted by jez9999
    Erm, no I don't, or I wouldn't have asked. Do you mean a good method is 'e-mail current owner and pray they reply'? I don't consider that a 'good' method. A good method would be one whereby, if the listed contacts were dormant, they would lose the domain.


    Oops, sorry, I thought you knew. But I was actually referring to...
    legal means.

    But of course, they're costly.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,797
    Originally posted by jez9999
    I'm not sure I'd agree with that analogy at all. Real estate costs *serious money*, tens of thousands of $$$. You don't get bastards coming along and buying up half of the US for a few dollars, like you do with domains (how many 'premium' domains does buydomains own? 500,000? Now, tell me that isn't ludicrous.) I'm not sure you'd have the problem we have now *on this scale* if domains were significantly more expensive to register/renew than they are now.
    The truth is: even when it costs $1,000 per year to register a domain, most premium names will still be gone, and the rest of the world left with half decent ones. FYI: BuyDomains does NOT get those domains for a few dollars each, and 5-figure domain sales are happening ALL THE TIME. The good thing is: even if you don't have a lot of money, you can still register mediocre domains and rent an apartment away from high-end residential areas.
    Co-Founder @HostHideout. Profoundly influenced by #Bauhaus, @Nameslave unrepentantly embraces #Minimalism with a bias for functionality, color theory and pixel precision: a #multimedia messenger in the McLuhan sense. His totally irrelevant M.Ed. dissertation examines Organizational Culture and Change Management. He also likes Patrik Ervell, Wong Kar-wai and IKEA.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    75
    nameslave: Even $1000 isn't much compared to real estate prices, but anyway that wasn't quite my point - I understand that domains are being *sold/bought* for lots of money, but what if each domain cost maybe $100/$200 to register and renew *per year*? Costs for these premium domain providers would mount up pretty quickly, you're talking 500k*100 = 50 million dollars a year to sit on 500k domains Seems good to me. If you're gonna hog that much namespace, you ought to have to pay bigtime.

    In addition, you say most *premium* domains would still be gone. This may or may not be the case, as outlined above, but what about the not-quite-so-premium domains that are registered today? My website's name is Gem's Games, and it gets a few hits. I'm not aware of any reason that someone would register gemsgames.com and sit on it if I hadn't named my website that (gemsgames isn't somthing like free.com that people might just type in because it's an improper noun, or a common typo). In a way, it's almost flattering. It's also very annoying. If this person hadn't been able to buy it up for nearly nothing, they probably wouldn't have had the motivation to register it at all. It's not exactly what I'd call a premium domain, but it's SO cost-effective for them to buy that domain up that they can afford to do it, just to grab a few hits from visitors presumably accidentally visiting there when they meant to come to my site.

    Disgraceful, if you ask me.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,042
    I have domains that I am not currently using for anything. They were all registered for some future projects that I haven't yet had time for. Why should I be forced to pay for hosting for these domains just to prove to someone that I really still want them?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    75
    Lubeca: To prove that you really still want them.

    Sorry, but I don't believe you should be able to hold on to domains because you 'might need them in the future'.

    If nobody took that attitude, they'd probably still be available in the future for you to register if you did actually need them, but you should register them only WHEN you need them.

    Of course you don't, because you're worried that some domain nazi will jump on them and you won't get them back, which is what I'm complaining about with the current system.

  13. #13
    Originally posted by jez9999
    Lubeca: To prove that you really still want them.


    Why should one have to prove to another they have a use for it?
    Unless they're infringing on a trademark...

    Originally posted by jez9999
    Sorry, but I don't believe you should be able to hold on to domains because you 'might need them in the future'.

    If nobody took that attitude, they'd probably still be available in the future for you to register if you did actually need them, but you should register them only WHEN you need them.

    Of course you don't, because you're worried that some domain nazi will jump on them and you won't get them back, which is what I'm complaining about with the current system.
    Which brings us back to one of the questions earlier: what metric
    can be used that's fair and acceptable to everyone?

    The answer, of course, is there isn't and there won't be. Domains
    will continue to be on a first come first served basis because it's
    the most "fair metric" we've got.

    One exception, of course, are ccTLDs. But for the gTLDs, uh uh.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    75
    Originally posted by davezan


    Why should one have to prove to another they have a use for it?
    Unless they're infringing on a trademark...
    Have you read this thread?? I explained up above why I think the current system sucks.

    Which brings us back to one of the questions earlier: what metric
    can be used that's fair and acceptable to everyone?

    The answer, of course, is there isn't and there won't be. Domains
    will continue to be on a first come first served basis because it's
    the most "fair metric" we've got.
    *BS*. There are tons of metrics in life we accept and generally abide by, even though not 100% of people agree on them. They're usually enshrined in law. Driving regulations, copyright regulations, banking regulations, environmental/pollution regulations, to name but a few. Now you're saying that, for some reason, this generally-accepted behaviour shouldn't apply to domain names and unless 100% of people can agree on something, we mustn't have any kind of regulation at all? I plain disagree with you there.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    919
    Originally posted by jez9999
    Lubeca: To prove that you really still want them.

    Sorry, but I don't believe you should be able to hold on to domains because you 'might need them in the future'.

    BS

    Should you only buy the food you are going to eat at that meal, should you only be allowed to buy the clothes that you will wear that day.

    Land and property is a good anolgy I know dozens of people that bought land in the 70's and 80's and are selling it now, bought for peanuts and sold for fortunes, that is commercial practice.

    I said in another thread just how do you intend to police such a request as witholding and or removing domains? which ones? i.e. .com is not an American domain but a gTLD and as such you would need acceptance from every country in the world - fat chance

    A website is not equal to a domain or vice versa I have domains that provide email only and or dns, secondary services etc none of which have websites. Perhaps you would like to dictate what uses a domain can be put too before it is stolen and put in place for the next speculator ow maybe you think you can claim it - dear gawd did millions not die to provide you with the freedom of free market economy.

    Sour grapes my friend - grow up and live in the real world, this thread pops up with increasing regularity and always by the ones that cannot obtain a domain because someone beat them to it or they were born in the wrong decade.
    Nil illegitimi carborundum
    I'm getting old and don't do drugs. I get the same effect just standing up fast.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    75
    Originally posted by Goldwing
    BS

    Should you only buy the food you are going to eat at that meal, should you only be allowed to buy the clothes that you will wear that day.
    A spurios analogy, of course, because those things are finite and will be used up, whereas domains aren't and won't.

    Land and property is a good anolgy I know dozens of people that bought land in the 70's and 80's and are selling it now, bought for peanuts and sold for fortunes, that is commercial practice.
    Several points can be made to counter this. Not every country is such a believer in real estate as the US. With land, if someone isn't selling the land you want, you can just find somewhere nearby, or another suitable location in another town to set up shop. With domains, you really can't... you have a website with a certain name, or an idea for a certain business, you're gonna have a small limit of domains that are suitable in order for them not to be confused with the squatter domains. No, this analogy is bunk too.

    I said in another thread just how do you intend to police such a request as witholding and or removing domains? which ones? i.e. .com is not an American domain but a gTLD and as such you would need acceptance from every country in the world - fat chance
    I don't really see why you'd need the world to agree. You just have one chief registry for each TLD that controls these things.

    A website is not equal to a domain or vice versa I have domains that provide email only and or dns, secondary services etc none of which have websites. Perhaps you would like to dictate what uses a domain can be put too before it is stolen and put in place for the next speculator ow maybe you think you can claim it - dear gawd did millions not die to provide you with the freedom of free market economy.
    You obviously purposely ignored the rest of this thread where I said that domains had many uses, but the means of proving that it was being put to SOME use would be a mandatory http service, even if it was just one explanatory page.

    Sour grapes my friend - grow up and live in the real world, this thread pops up with increasing regularity and always by the ones that cannot obtain a domain because someone beat them to it or they were born in the wrong decade. [/B]
    Yeah, I sure am sour. I'm sour that people are sitting on domains and not using them for anything. Did I fail to make that point? I don't see anything wrong or shameful about my attitude. It's similar to being angry about someone sitting on billions of dollars because they can, restricting the flow of diamonds to make themselves more money because they can (De Beers anybody?), etc. And I'm not the only one who's sour. Believe it or not, we don't all agree with the greed that pure capitalism allows.

    And by the way, who exactly died to give me the free market? Democracy, perhaps but the free market? Hah! Get off your high horse. Most of the world (US included) has far from a free market.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,797
    Originally posted by jez9999
    nameslave: Even $1000 isn't much compared to real estate prices, but anyway that wasn't quite my point - I understand that domains are being *sold/bought* for lots of money, but what if each domain cost maybe $100/$200 to register and renew *per year*?
    I was talking about $1,000 per name year, if you re-read my post more carefully.

    Originally posted by jez9999
    I'm not aware of any reason that someone would register gemsgames.com and sit on it if I hadn't named my website that (gemsgames isn't somthing like free.com that people might just type in because it's an improper noun, or a common typo). In a way, it's almost flattering.
    I'm not 100% sure of that. A LOT of people THOUGHT their names are unique and original, only to find that dozens of people around the globe have already been using it for quite a while. From my experience, "Gem's Games" could well fall into that category.
    Co-Founder @HostHideout. Profoundly influenced by #Bauhaus, @Nameslave unrepentantly embraces #Minimalism with a bias for functionality, color theory and pixel precision: a #multimedia messenger in the McLuhan sense. His totally irrelevant M.Ed. dissertation examines Organizational Culture and Change Management. He also likes Patrik Ervell, Wong Kar-wai and IKEA.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    75
    nameslave: try a Google for it. I doubt you'll come up with a significant site with the same name apart from mine (and maybe a few squatter domains).

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,667
    I don't see how a system that demanded that 'real' websites were attached to domains would be feasible. Today there are many parked domains names with nothing but links. If there was a regulation demanding a 'real' site what criteria would be used? If I had parked poker related domain name I'd just replace a links page with 4 pages of generic no brainer info about poker...or put up 2 vacation photos of me in Vegas. Who's to say thats not a real site?
    Any system that evaluates website content and attempts to revoke domain ownership is doomed to fail.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    919
    Several points can be made to counter this. Not every country is such a believer in real estate as the US. With land, if someone isn't selling the land you want, you can just find somewhere nearby, or another suitable location in another town to set up shop. With domains, you really can't... you have a website with a certain name, or an idea for a certain business, you're gonna have a small limit of domains that are suitable in order for them not to be confused with the squatter domains. No, this analogy is bunk too.
    One I am not in the US, however land is a premium product in most countries that has prime locations like prime domains, it has certain addresses like domains, you suggestion of going next door could equally be applied to domains as well if the .com is already taken then try .biz same domain different location if that location don't suit try .net or any of the other multitude of domains out there - the reason you are upset is you cannot get the prime piece of real estate you want. To further the analogy not everyone can have a beachfront property

    A spurios analogy, of course, because those things are finite and will be used up, whereas domains aren't and won't.
    OK should I not be allowed to buy antiques, classic cars or dozens of other products unless i use them for the purpose that was originally intended. I have a huge collection of vinyl records however no longer a record deck to play then on, should someone be able to remove these from me ?

    I don't really see why you'd need the world to agree. You just have one chief registry for each TLD that controls these things.
    That kind of stuff is what keeps lawyers and politicians in a job, since any action would be retrospective the legal battles would last well past our lifetime.

    You obviously purposely ignored the rest of this thread where I said that domains had many uses, but the means of proving that it was being put to SOME use would be a mandatory http service, even if it was just one explanatory page.
    No you obviously want to ignore the fact that I and many others do not wish to have a "website" for many domains, it is not a requirement nor should it be, it would also do nothing put create traffic on the net and acheive nothing that a whois cannot do anyway.

    Yeah, I sure am sour. I'm sour that people are sitting on domains and not using them for anything. Did I fail to make that point? I don't see anything wrong or shameful about my attitude.
    Because you are sitting determing what purpose I can use something I have title for, to say you have a better use or i am not using it right is total arrogance. I have domains i bought back in 93/94 some have been used over the years some have been mothballed used and mothballed again why should I give these up because I am not actively using them? who would decide who gets it or would you simply feed the snap market?

    Get off your high horse. Most of the world (US included) has far from a free market.
    I would say the person that wants to change the face of the domain market to suit his own wishes has a hell of a lot bigger horse to climb off than myself.

    However like i said this thread pops up every few days/weeks same story different writer
    Nil illegitimi carborundum
    I'm getting old and don't do drugs. I get the same effect just standing up fast.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,797
    Originally posted by jez9999
    nameslave: try a Google for it. I doubt you'll come up with a significant site with the same name apart from mine (and maybe a few squatter domains).
    If so, then I'm sorry to say you have made a grave mistake of not register a matching domain name BEFORE you even think about starting a project, which is the normal business practice these days. Can't help you here.
    Co-Founder @HostHideout. Profoundly influenced by #Bauhaus, @Nameslave unrepentantly embraces #Minimalism with a bias for functionality, color theory and pixel precision: a #multimedia messenger in the McLuhan sense. His totally irrelevant M.Ed. dissertation examines Organizational Culture and Change Management. He also likes Patrik Ervell, Wong Kar-wai and IKEA.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    896
    The example you posted could verywell be in use you have no way of knowing.


    Your suggestion of raising the domain price to $100 a year is stupid.

    My website which makes $0 costs $102.12 dollars a year to run and serves as a communtication medium for friends.

    with $100 a year for the domain the site would be to costly to run and shutdown that means even less resourses for end users (Remembering mines not the only small site that would have to shut down) and just another domain for squatters to snach.


    Your idea of raising the domain reg fees is so short sighted it could be called "Moronic"

    Personally if I owned games.com id have no problem paying $100-$200 a year since I can sell it for much more (at least $100-200 more)

    so raising the domain price isnt gunna help the little guy.
    I could tell you a joke about UDP. But I'm not sure you would get it!

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    249
    Dan just beat me to it, but in case you say a communications medium with friends is a waste of a domain, I'll add my 2 cents.

    My site linked below gets about 5,000 unique visitors a month and operates at a loss of around $50/year. I run it because I enjoy it, but judging by the number of visitors I get, many who which also contribute content to the site, I think it's clear I am making use of the domain in a way that benefits the web community.

    If it suddenly cost me $100/year just for my domain, I wouldn't continue the site.

    What's perhaps even worse, if it cost me $100 just to get the name to try out the site, I never would have tried to start it.

    I have a couple of other domains right now that do nothing but I'm planning to put site there some day.

    ---

    Taken from the other point of view where you say all domains must have a valid site, who's to say what's valid.

    What if I want a web page where it displays my favorite shakespearean quote, and that one-liner is my entire content.

    What right do you or anyone else have to tell me that page is not good enough to justify my having the domain? Keep in mind in the US any attempt to do so would violate the first ammendment.

    ---

    FWIW, I agree with you in priciple, there are several domains I could make good use of that are in the hands of squatters, but your proposed "solutions" are far worse than the current system.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Kathmandu, Nepal
    Posts
    3,982
    Let's think a moment,

    Let's say some prime domain names (ie. cars.com, games.com, travel.com) are not being used. This idea seems to want to have them released to someone else (ok - who? how? drops? guess who wins those...). If we go the drop route... it ends up costing a fortune beyond what most people have to spend and falls into buydomains, nameadmin, ultsearch's large portfolios. That better? This would cause another rant post. So let's look at the other possibility, it is given to someone who would make it a 'real' site. Who? Who gets the benefit of turning a prime domain name into a 'real' site? How can you possibly allocate it? You? Real fair.... sounds like a system everyone would sign up for. Lottery? Maybe.... Applications? Sounds reasonable, but can you enforce everyone to developed exactly as they apply? I want to develop a site for board games and another group wants computer games? How can one quantitatively evaluate websites and their benefit/use/etc?

    I don't really see any of these being viable, maybe you do? These sorts of threads seem to be motivated out of personal gripe and when they claim the domain holders are greedy it is quite hypocritical when usually the poster's interest is getting the domain for themselves but under the guise of a superior use.
    Kevin Ohashi - Founder of ReviewSignal.com - Honest Web Hosting Reviews
    Check out my 2021 WordPress Hosting Performance Benchmarks, the most comprehensive look at WP hosting performance

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    75
    Originally posted by virginia
    I don't see how a system that demanded that 'real' websites were attached to domains would be feasible. Today there are many parked domains names with nothing but links. If there was a regulation demanding a 'real' site what criteria would be used? If I had parked poker related domain name I'd just replace a links page with 4 pages of generic no brainer info about poker...or put up 2 vacation photos of me in Vegas. Who's to say thats not a real site?
    This is the most valid criticism there is of my proposed system. As I said, there would have to be a decision made about where to draw the line upon what is a valid use of a domain. In a (probably unsuccessful) attempt to satisfy all the people who think the current system is acceptable, I would draw that line very close to the current system - the domain would have to basically have SOME sort of unique content, and be able to show that it wasn't basically the same as a ton of other generic pages, even with some minor differences. I still think this would stop people that hold hundreds of thousands of domains; i mean are they going to honestly come up with some unique content for each domain? Before anyone says, several domains pointing to the exact same site would of course be allowed, as long as that site wasn't itself a 'generic' page. Basically the test would be "Is the webpage OR other service offered from that domain 'generic'? If so, use it or lose it."

    Originally posted by Goldwing
    One I am not in the US, however land is a premium product in most countries that has prime locations like prime domains, it has certain addresses like domains, you suggestion of going next door could equally be applied to domains as well if the .com is already taken then try .biz same domain different location if that location don't suit try .net or any of the other multitude of domains out there - the reason you are upset is you cannot get the prime piece of real estate you want. To further the analogy not everyone can have a beachfront property
    No, I don't think this is a valid analogy. If someone buys the building I want for a shop but I'm able to get the building next to it, nobody is gonna confuse my shop for the other person's, it will have a different name. If the person next to my shop copies my name or has one VERY similar, I probably COULD take some legal action! With domains, I'd describe someone having yourdomainname.otherextension as being very similar to this, especially if they have the .com and you don't. The domain system isn't meant to work this way, but the fact is that people confuse one domain with another, commonly typing in the wrong domain extension when they're trying to get to your site. They could easily confuse the site they go to with yours by accident, or think that your company had moved/changed and give up.

    OK should I not be allowed to buy antiques, classic cars or dozens of other products unless i use them for the purpose that was originally intended. I have a huge collection of vinyl records however no longer a record deck to play then on, should someone be able to remove these from me ?
    Those things are physical, reproducable objects so yes you should be able to keep them. A domain name is not, it's a namespace. You cannot manufacture more foo.com's so that many people can own one.

    No you obviously want to ignore the fact that I and many others do not wish to have a "website" for many domains, it is not a requirement nor should it be, it would also do nothing put create traffic on the net and acheive nothing that a whois cannot do anyway.
    I'm trying to propose a system that novices would find easy to use, and they'd usually not know how to use a whois, and the best way they could find out the use of a domain is via an http service.

    Because you are sitting determing what purpose I can use something I have title for, to say you have a better use or i am not using it right is total arrogance. I have domains i bought back in 93/94 some have been used over the years some have been mothballed used and mothballed again why should I give these up because I am not actively using them? who would decide who gets it or would you simply feed the snap market?
    I don't think it's at all arrogant. It's not like i'm saying you shouldn't be able to use the domain if you are using it for any sort of purpose other than nothing/generic page. I don't think that's arrogant or unreasonable. You should give up domains that you are not using, and I make no apology for saying that. Nobody would 'decide' who got the domain, it would go back into the available domain pool and be taken on a first-come-first-served basis; if the next owner didn't use it, the same process would happen again.

    However like i said this thread pops up every few days/weeks same story different writer
    Oh, so I'm not the only one who feels this way? Tell me something I don't know. Why don't you try thinking differently just once, and not immediately dismissing any such proposal as ludicrous, and the result of someone's personal misfortune, because of your apparent libertarian approach towards capitalism?

    Originally posted by nameslave
    If so, then I'm sorry to say you have made a grave mistake of not register a matching domain name BEFORE you even think about starting a project, which is the normal business practice these days. Can't help you here.
    Oh come on, this started out as a personal website (and still really is) without its own domain name. Of course I shouldn't have had to register domain(s) for it beforehand; it may or may not have grown to a sufficient size. And now I can't register the ideal one because a squatter, NOT someone who's using it legitimately, a squatter has it and doesn't even seem to want to sell it. This isn't a just a personal thing, I don't believe this situation should be allowed to happen for ANY similar cirtumstances, and have believed that for a long time.

    Dan451's comments: Well, I think I said (and am saying now) that raising the price is not the ideal solution, which is why I'm really proposing the 'use it or lose it' one which I believe would be much better.

    Originally posted by Socrat
    Dan just beat me to it, but in case you say a communications medium with friends is a waste of a domain, I'll add my 2 cents.
    I don't think it's a waste of a domain, and you could keep it no problem.

    What if I want a web page where it displays my favorite shakespearean quote, and that one-liner is my entire content.
    Mmm, tricky. Trouble is, you could get scripts that would post that kind of content for squatters owning 100,000s of domains. No, I'm afraid I don't think that would be a valid use of a domain. Why the f*ck would you need a domain just for one fecking quote? Don't you think that would be a waste, hmm? I consider mass buying up of domains for generic pages to be like buying up TV or radio spectrum and playing white noise. Oh it might even be allowed in some countries, but it's a complete and utter waste of basically public resources and many countries have successful regulation systems to prevent this.

    What right do you or anyone else have to tell me that page is not good enough to justify my having the domain? Keep in mind in the US any attempt to do so would violate the first ammendment.
    Ah, the good old first amendment. You stick to it like limpets even though most of the others, and even that one, have been broken (try giving pro-Al Queda terrorism rants in public). This has bugger all to do with the first amendment. Just because you can't get your own domain to do nothing with does not stop you in any way from expressing your opinion, you just have to do it in a more sensible way. You couldn't do the former before domains existed, was that violating the first amendment?

    Originally posted by kohashi
    I don't really see any of these being viable, maybe you do? These sorts of threads seem to be motivated out of personal gripe and when they claim the domain holders are greedy it is quite hypocritical when usually the poster's interest is getting the domain for themselves but under the guise of a superior use.
    Nope, as I said earlier, I hold this opinion for all similar circumstances, not just mine, and have done so for a long time. In addition, i'd be quite happy to give up any domains I owned if I were using them for nothing/totally generic purposes.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •