I really dislike nameadministration.com.

""NAmedia is not in the business of selling domain names. It is not our intention to "hold out for your best offer". Replying to your email and the many we receive like it each day, costs us time that could be better spent growing our media business." - Shannon Bauman

I hate domain squatters so much. - Bret Taylor

It seems like ICANN could fix this if they just changed the cost of owning a domain to be like $100 a year instead of $10 a year. It would change the business model enough to discourage squatters it seems. - Shannon Bauman

Shannon, you're right. In the UK Network Solutions used to charge about £100 per domain name. People still bought them. I'd still pay $100 for my domain, but that could cripple the domain squatters. Unless they're abusing that process whereby they're allowed to keep one registered for 30(?) days without payment in case the card payment failed. (Not sure if that still works but I remember reading about it a while ago.) - Tony Ruscoe

That just creates an environment of artificial scarcity. A better solution would be to crack open the market for TLDs, letting anyone set up and administer their own, with their own policies and prices. Let a million TLDs bloom! - Michael R. Bernstein

Owning several hundred domain names, I find it interesting that this view of ownership comes up again and again. Nameadminstration.com had as much right to that domain as anyone else. What they do with it is entirely up to them. They are no more squatters than that guy down the street that owns that vacant lot across town. Just because he has yet to build a nice home on that lot like you think he should, dosen't mean he is a squatter. Squatters forcefully occupy property that belongs to someone else. Isn't you complaint really that they got domain you wanted instead of you? - Robert Kenney

FWIW: I miss out on many good names to these guys and others like them. Just google Ben Franklin and domain name auction and see for yourself. They win a ton of them by outbidding the rest of us. - Robert Kenney

Robert: the main difference is that I don't accidentally visit vacant lots that try to trick me into visiting affiliate links and spam networks. And it costs a lot more money to own a vacant lot, in property taxes and other expenses, than it does to do nothing with a domain name. It makes the internet a worse place. Increasing the cost of ownership is a great idea in my opinion. - Bret Taylor

I understand the dislike for parking pages and affiliate programs, and agree that they can be misused by some people. But if the goal is to monetize a domain, then relative, useful links matching what the person is looking for can have some value. Most corporate owners of parked pages don't employ "spam networks" or the like. Google and Yahoo provide most links for parked pages, from legitimate businesses looking to reach a target market. - Robert Kenney

Robert - I'd love to hear more of the details of the industry if you are up for sharing. Specifically, what the going price is on domains that are being purchased by these guys. The example that irked me today was colligate.com - colligate is an english dictionary word, but seemingly has not much else going for it. Are parked domain people bidding on the order of a few dollars for domains like this, or tends of dollars, or hundreds of dollars? - Shannon Bauman

Re: $100/yr domain names. There are lots of people out there who can't afford that cost who still have a message to get out. Domain squatters are the worst of the worst, no matter how you try to rationalize it. If you're sitting around on a domain name that is getting little to no traffic, in the hopes that someone will one day want to buy it, you are a squatter. End. - EricaJoy

These people have very, very deep pockets and spend tens of thousands of dollars a day purchasing domains. A single word domain like that would go for 1 or 2k. If you were in the auction, you should have seen the final price. It's a less common word, so it's value is relative. Name Admin is one of the largest in the business and spends millions yearly. Here is an example of last weeks sales at Sedo. Many more places also sell domains. http://www.domainnamenews.com/domain-... - Robert Kenney

EricaJoy, don't you think that people with a message to get out that can't afford $100 for a domain might settle for hosting their words on a free subdomain or site offered by WordPress or Blogger or Google Sites? - Tony Ruscoe

Agree Tony. There are lots of options for everyone. A well developed .NET will always rank higher than a parked .COM. Google filters out parked pages anyway. - Robert Kenney

Yes but then they run the risk of being censored by the network that they choose to use. - EricaJoy

Another sales list: http://www.dnjournal.com/domains... - Robert Kenney

$45K for bottledwater.com last week. Was the person that owned it a squatter because he didn't have a huge "Bottled Water" website up and running? No, just savvy and a smart businessman. A $100 renewal fee would only hurt the small people, not these guys. - Robert Kenney

I'll withhold my opinion on the first half of your statement :) - as to the $100 - yeah, I agree, for sites like that, it looks like it wouldn't make a difference at all. - Shannon Bauman

No Philipp, this is still America, where private property is the cornerstone of our country. Some government bureaucrat deciding whether I am "using" my domain, home, car, etc. as THEY see fit, would be unconstitutional. Today "search" is making the actual domain name less relevant anyway. In 15 years, these domain names may be worthless. Taking risks, investing, and developing your business is capitalism. - Robert Kenney

The guy who bought the vacant lot, bought it from someone else. He didn't invent it out of whole cloth. The current prices for registration are akin to the frontier days, where the government encouraged anyone who could to just go cordon off some land and claim property rights. That was bottom up land allocation. Today's system means it's extremely cheap for those with money to cordon off vast tracks of 'land' (domain names). Do you think it would be fair if Bill Gates had a time machine and went back and bought up millions upon millions of the top domain names and parked them all at Microsoft? The system benefits those now who have money to execute a land-rush. - Ray Cromwell

[I had moved this comment to another thread -- moving it back here] If a party/ gov't would propose a law to fight domain squatting (i.e. mass-sitting on unused domains), would you support it? - Philipp Lenssen

"Today 'search' is making the actual domain name less relevant anyway. In 15 years, these domain names may be worthless." I think com domains are more linkable, and that could influence search ranking... - Philipp Lenssen

If Bill Gates built a time machine, then that would be the least of our problems. The land may or may not have some future value. Same for domains. We should all have been so smart to register blue.com or houses.com 15 years ago. No one would have stopped us, and that is the nature of business. - Robert Kenney

Robert, in America, can you build anything you want on a (physical) spot you own, say, a piece of land near city center? (Can you also "litter" it all you want? One may intepret domain squatting as info space littering...) - Philipp Lenssen

Yes, we do choose to limit some types of use of property in the name of the community. However, the argument is about a "lack of use". Raw, undeveloped land. Example: I own imagehere.com. If I do nothing with this site, and someone else claims that they can make better use of it, should it be taken from me? - Robert Kenney

Robert - Ideally I would like to use economic factors to solve your example. Specifically, my opinion (and others here) is that it is bad for the community. Solution: Make it not in your best interest to keep that domain if you aren't using it. Possible implementations: high tax/annual feels on your property, and remove profitability of link networks (as I would argue they do NOT help users). Signed, your local socialist. - Shannon Bauman

Shannon, I appreciate your honesty. Get enough people to agree with you, and you will have your wish. Just hold on to your house, car, Mac, and anything else your own. Make sure you are using them "properly", lest they be taken from you via government decree. Some of us will choose not hand over our lives to bureaucrats who think they know better, I trust you understand. - Robert Kenney

Robert - You are preaching to the choir on issues of bureaucracy, and lack of trust in politicians (http://www.shantheman.com/politic...), but I guess my point was (or at least now is) that some of us in society have deemed this process of domain squatting (for purposes of link networks) to be detrimental - and it is within society's ability, and right, to change the system so as to make it more beneficial to everyone. Anyhow, I'll leave it at that. Please do go ahead and respond if you have thoughts on that, I'll leave you with the parting words. - Shannon Bauman

Robert: you keep talking about "owning" things, but you don't own a domain name... you rent it. Domain names aren't purchased, and thus aren't deserving of the sort of protections we provide private property. - Roger Benningfield

It's not unreasonable to want to improve the system in order to clean it up. Nothing wrong with that. I think in the end, the system is self-regulating. Most domains are unused. And for good reason. They have very little value. I could take "llamasaregreatandtastedelicious.com and make something out of it. Create a site, encourage users to join, post interesting content, etc. This is creating something of value from basically nothing. But if I just sit on this domain, or create a parking page, it wont have long term value. Period. So I have wasted my money in registry fees. But if the site is llamas.com, then in fact it will have value, to many people. This is the current system, and no one is harmed if a page goes unused. - Robert Kenney

Agree Roger, I should say I own the "rights" to it's use as I see fit, as long as I pay for it, and don't infringe on trademarks. - Robert Kenney

"This is creating something of value from basically nothing." Robert, domain squatters bet that YOU will find a way to add value to the domain, upon which they'll sell it to you -- they don't aim to add value by themselves. (At least that's how I would define a domain squatter, and of course that doesn't solve the issue of just who would "control" the definition -- i.e. if there were a law against such squatting, then squatters may escape it by putting up cheap stuff that fakes value.) - Philipp Lenssen

Roger: they are considered private property with the same protections: "The docket continues for 3 pages discussing this argument and the court reaches the final conclusion..." “the Defendants 141 Domain Names are property, and therefore subject to this Court’s in rem jurisdiction or to possible civil forfeiture” http://www.domainnamenews.com/legal-i... - Robert Kenney

Philipp, that's a fair point. But this is the same as the "raw land" view. Intent for the purchaser is to develop it. Condos, shopping center, etc. - Robert Kenney

Q: is this squatting? http://www.llamas.com/ - Robert Kenney

estimated value: $79,000 http://estibot.com/results... - Robert Kenney

That page illustrates the gray zone of defining what's squatting. I would say it's squatting -- it could be completely automated -- but the problem remains: however we define "it is not adding value", the squatter could escape by implementing "is is not adding value + 1" (where "1" is a tiny bit of value/ manual labor, e.g. in this case, perhaps an original two-sentence Llamas ryhme). - Philipp Lenssen

+1 on the gray zone. It's a slippery slope. I bet the Llama Lifestyle Marketing Association would love to have it. http://www.llama.org/ But the .ORG works fine for them. This is where the market takes care of itself. - Robert Kenney

Milk.com is a famous example. http://milk.com/value/ - Robert Kenney

Friends

Login

Service