Results 1 to 25 of 61
Thread: *sigh* - dormant domains
-
06-18-2005, 05:57 AM #1Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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*
-
06-18-2005, 08:00 AM #2Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-18-2005, 08:11 AM #3Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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...........
-
06-18-2005, 08:44 AM #4Mobile Multimedia Minimalist
- 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.
-
06-18-2005, 08:57 AM #5Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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.
-
06-18-2005, 09:56 AM #6Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Posts
- 4,076
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.
-
06-18-2005, 10:16 AM #7Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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.
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.
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.
-
06-18-2005, 10:29 AM #8Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Posts
- 4,076
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.
-
06-18-2005, 10:30 AM #9Mobile Multimedia Minimalist
- 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.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.
-
06-18-2005, 10:48 AM #10Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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.
-
06-18-2005, 10:58 AM #11Web Hosting Master
- 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?
-
06-18-2005, 11:19 AM #12Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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.
-
06-18-2005, 11:50 AM #13Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Posts
- 4,076
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.
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.
-
06-18-2005, 12:12 PM #14Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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...
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.
-
06-18-2005, 05:28 PM #15Web Hosting Master
- 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'.
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.
-
06-18-2005, 05:51 PM #16Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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.
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. [/B]
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.
-
06-18-2005, 05:57 PM #17Mobile Multimedia Minimalist
- 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*?
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.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.
-
06-18-2005, 06:19 PM #18Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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).
-
06-18-2005, 06:35 PM #19Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
06-18-2005, 07:27 PM #20Web Hosting Master
- 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.
A spurios analogy, of course, because those things are finite and will be used up, whereas domains aren't and won't.
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.
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.
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.
Get off your high horse. Most of the world (US included) has far from a free market.
However like i said this thread pops up every few days/weeks same story different writerNil illegitimi carborundum
I'm getting old and don't do drugs. I get the same effect just standing up fast.
-
06-18-2005, 08:19 PM #21Mobile Multimedia Minimalist
- 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).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.
-
06-19-2005, 12:54 AM #22Web Hosting Master
- 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!
-
06-19-2005, 01:44 AM #23Junior Guru
- 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.
-
06-19-2005, 02:22 AM #24Retired Moderator
- 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
-
06-19-2005, 06:08 AM #25Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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?
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
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 ?
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.
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?
However like i said this thread pops up every few days/weeks same story different writer
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.
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.
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.
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.