
Ask HN: How could we solve the problem of domain squatters? - frigg
Because domain names are cheap (which is good since most people can afford them) some people often register hundreds and thousands of domains and just keep there in the hope they will earn a lot from selling them. Of course most don&#x27;t get sold and nobody uses them.<p>Should ICANN intervene here? It doesn&#x27;t SEEM fair and I think there should be some restrictions to prevent this.
======
kohanz
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I don't really see this as a
"problem" just as I don't see my inability to afford my dream home or car as
unfair. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I'm not aware of the domain
market being "fixed" in any unscrupulous way. Squatters take risks to buy up
many domains (most of which will never sell) and hope to profit off a few. The
prices of the domains will be whatever the market bears. Perhaps the only real
problem I can think of is that the market is very opaque, in a way that
prevents liquidity. It's such an arduous process to find out what a squatted
domain actually costs, that most people don't even bother. So a solution might
be a better and more global domain name market.

------
Adlai

      People asking questions, lost in confusion
      Well, I tell them there's no problem, only solutions
        - John Lennon
    

The other solutions proposed here work at the wrong level. The approach taken
by I2P[1] does away with the concept of globally squattable names[2], leaving
public keys as the global identifiers and letting individuals define local
nicknames or delegate to trusted lists.

[1] [https://geti2p.net/en/docs/naming](https://geti2p.net/en/docs/naming)

[2] Even
[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/squarezooko](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/squarezooko)
is susceptible to squatting by those who can invest (or rent) computing power.

PS: I had a chance recently to talk with a "DNSquatter": the doorman at a
building I frequent. Poor guy bought _tens of thousands_ of domain names,
years ago, with money he had available for investment, and asked me for advice
on how to cash out his investment. It seems to me that he's the victim of a
_chumpatron_ [3], rather than the scammer himself; although his actions do
help keep the scam alive. I advised him to consider the money lost.

[3] [http://www.loper-os.org/?p=1446](http://www.loper-os.org/?p=1446)

~~~
Natanael_L
Agreed, and my approach so far for naming is this:

[https://roamingaroundatrandom.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/web-o...](https://roamingaroundatrandom.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/web-
of-trust-dns/)

One of the advantages of it is that it can be used to mimic the DNS/SSL model
or any other PKI just by imposing the right priority calculation rules, so you
at least don't lose any capabilities with it.

------
Asbostos
Maybe it's not a problem. Squatters have to pay ongoing registration fees to
maintain their stock so that puts a cap on registering of every possible
domain. You could even see them as providing a service by keeping desirable
domains available for people who really really want them instead of first-
come-first-served which is quite a ridiculous way of allocating resources.

~~~
frigg
The registration fees are very low and they're a yearly fee which doesn't make
that a big burden.

>"keeping desirable domains available"

Eh, they're more like keeping the domains and selling them to the highest
bidder. You're defining the "really really want" here as the entity with the
biggest pocket. Domains cost so little for a reason, so everyone can afford
them but obviously some people abuse this and it's why we need more oversight.
IMO of course.

~~~
insoluble
> Domains cost so little for a reason, so everyone can afford them

This is exactly right. Squatters are taking away from the people what the
original designers of the system intended. If they had intended that only
those with lots of money had short-length domain names, then they would have
made them expensive from the start -- or made the price a function of the
character-length.

------
marcfowler
The first thing I thought of was some rule saying that you have to be 'using'
the domain within, say, 2 years or it gets pulled from you.

But then the problem is, do we want someone policing what the definition of
'using' a domain is? Hell no.

I think that unfortunately the way it's going is that you basically use a
different TLD, but even now it's beneficial to have the .com if you can
(especially among non-developer audiences who aren't used to .ly, .io, etc
etc). 'Just go to whatever.io' to your grandma isn't as obvious as 'Just go to
whatever.com'.

------
Rifu
With the advent of so many new TLDs, I'm of the opinion that this isn't even
that big of a problem anymore. Your 1st pick is being squatted? Just pick
another TLD.

~~~
insoluble
To an extent this is true, but if domains get too cheap, the problem could
resurface.

~~~
lukaslalinsky
The effect of the new TLDs will be that domain names will stop being relevant.
They are not that relevant even now, most people use Google rather than typing
in a domain name, but ".com" is still present in people's memories. When more
companies start using non-com domain names, the problem will just go away. It
will create another mess, but that's a different problem.

~~~
tedmiston
> When more companies start using non-com domain names, the problem will just
> go away.

Ehh, I mean, will this ever actually happen? While .co and .io domains are
popular in startups, consumers, especially non-technical ones, I think will
prevent a move away from .com from happening.

~~~
Nadya
As long as [Your name] results in your website on Google - the average user
doesn't care if it ends in .ninja, .pizza, .io, or .com because they are never
_entering_ that information. They type in some amount of "Google" and search
[Your Company Name] into Google. That's the _average_ user.

Users who are advanced enough to even understand URL's will likely remember [X
site is .org and Y site is .tokyo] or they'll bookmark the site if they find
themselves forgetting often.

Even as a highly technically proficient user - I find myself using a keyword
to search google for a domain name of a company if I am interested in finding
their website.

------
insoluble
Two approaches come to mind: (1) Require strict identity for domain
registration, and then limit the number per person to something like 3, except
where a special permit is held. (2) Make it illegal, where a heavy fine would
be imposed for squatting. Naturally there would need to be a grace period
post-registration before a domain were considered in squat-mode. Six months
could be suitable.

Furthermore, there could be an added regulation that no two domains could
serve essentially the same data for more than a certain transition period,
such as three months. Not only are such duplicates bad for spiders, but there
is no essential reason why they need to exist. With redirects and load
balancers, a site could easily be switched over from one domain to another in
a relatively short time.

One of the fundamental rules of this world is that if something _can_ be
abused, it _will_ be abused. And unlike infractions that are obvious and hurt
a person's social reputation, domain registration is so hidden that a person
can squat left and right without social repercussions. Hence, the only
solution is regulation -- either technical, or legal.

~~~
Menge
> limit the number per person to something like 3, except where a special
> permit is held.

Organizations are people too, or corporations end up getting special permits?
Either one leads to trouble and groups that buy up to maximums since they want
to use all their entitlements.

> no two domains could serve essentially the same data for more than a certain
> transition period

So now we all need different VPN gateway and email system homepages? Who is to
say domains exists for HTTP? They are unique names for many protocols.

The main problem is the ability to sell them for value. Make that hard. For
example, make parties prove it is a legal inheritance or court victory that
requires a transfer otherwise push it into the pool where others can try to
buy it faster and deny the old registrar involvement until it falls out of the
next valid ownership chain.

~~~
insoluble
Email logins are an interesting exception, at least for those whose domains
exist purely for vanity. For non-email logins, sub-domains could be used
instead.

I agree that targeting the selling aspect is another approach to consider,
although I imagine there are some big hurdles there as well.

------
Guest192038
The easiest solution is to raise the price so it's no longer a viable business
to squat domains. Right now you can buy 1,000 domains for $10k a year, and you
just need to a handful of those to be worth something to the right person, and
you break even.

Raise the price of a .com to $100 per year. This remains a minimal cost to any
profitable business, and it's cheap enough for new startups to buy a domain
for a year or two while attempting a new business.

If you can't afford it, well, you have countless other domain extensions you
can choose from at a cheaper rate.

I'd much rather pay $100 per year for a .com that I want, instead of having a
domain squatter asking $2k, and then having to settle for my fourth or fifth
choice that's actually available to register.

~~~
1123581321
I'd argue that the median price paid to a squatter is less than the present
value of $100/year for the life of the domain ownership minus the present
value of $10/year for the life of the domain ownership. So your proposal,
while shutting out squatters, would cost typical legitimate domain owners more
money.

------
JeansTV
A "squatter", by definition, is "someone who settles on property without right
or title". So who is the legal registered owner of a domain name property
squatting from?

Domain names are like the username you used to post the question. Your 'first
mover advantage' secured the name. The next person can't claim your
'squatting' on that user name, or all the other usernames that you 'own',
because now they want it.

------
btrask
You can't squat trademarks. You can use trademark claims to get domain names
from people who aren't using them legitimately, including trying to sell them.

We could make domain name registration work the same as trademark
registration, or people just need to get used to registering trademarks and
then using the trademark claim process.

Disclaimer: I haven't tried this. I'm afraid trademark claims might only be
honored for big companies, not for the little guys.

~~~
Someone1234
This isn't hugely effective.

Trademarks are industry/product/service specific. So just because someone else
owns "Example's Flower Shop" doesn't mean you cannot use "Example's Bakery"
since there is no reasonable expectation that a consumer could confuse the two
(i.e. your bakery doesn't benefit from their Flower Shop's brand). So if you
owned Example.com as the baking company, it is unlikely that the flower shop
could take it from you even if they own a legitimate trademark.

Another note is that trademarks protect TRADE. If you own a registered
trademark's domain but use the domain to host your collection of cat photos it
is unlikely the company could take that from you (although they can force you
to give it up by costing you thousands of dollars in lawyer fees for their
frivolous suits, which companies have definitely done in the past).

All I am saying is, it isn't cut and dry. Trademarks aren't a magic bullet.

PS - But like all things, the party with the most money/influence almost
always wins regardless of right/wrong, lawful/lawless. They can cost you tens
of thousands of dollars even if you're completely right and on the right side
of the law.

~~~
btrask
The ideas is to use it against outright squatters, not against other
businesses that have the same name. You're right that it doesn't help with
personal sites.

The "Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy"[1] seems pretty clear-cut
against squatters. See section 4a and 4b. "Bad faith" includes "primarily for
the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name
registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service
mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in
excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain
name." Basically a definition of squatting.

[1]
[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en](https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en)

------
lazyeye
Domain names can only be rented from the domain authority. They can never be
sold, just released back to the authority when finished with.

~~~
RandomBK
That's not that different from how it is right now. You never really "buy" a
domain from someone, you just give them money to convince them to release the
domain

------
BorisMelnik
Capitalism at its finest. Is it fair that people buy up parcels of acres of
real estate for practically nothing in hopes that it will one day become
developed and be able to sell it for millions? One could also argue the same
about art. Is it fair that people buy art for a few hundred bucks and sell it
for XX?

~~~
insoluble
To my understanding, the purpose of capitalism is to enable those who work the
hardest to in turn have the most resources brought their way. In other words,
more work equals more pay. If you want to bring true idealism into the
picture, then is capitalism not intended so that a person is compensated for
the value that they create for society?

The problem with squatting is that it _doesn 't create value_. It may create
scarcity, but that's not inherent value. For example, diamonds are scarce in
the market, but they don't have an inherent value anywhere near their price.
When you work producing software, you are bringing something of value into
existence that _didn 't exist before_. When you work long day on the railroad,
you are organising matter in a way that helps society to function. When you
squat on real estate, you are sitting on something waiting for _society_ to
create value in the surrounding areas. _Society_ is creating the value that
the land eventually sells for -- _not_ the person squatting. When the squatter
sells that property, they are deriving the ends from other people's work. This
is akin to counterfeiting money: Sure it has value in the market, but the
person counterfeiting didn't create that value.

------
shoo
in the old fashioned world of physical domain squatting - i.e. land
speculation - ramping up land taxes (as some percentage of the current
valuation of the land) is one way to discourage this kind of thing.

perhaps not the best way, but certainly a way to go about it.

------
debacle
ICANN is profiting from squatters far more than from your average domain
owner. It's not in their best interests to intervene.

Squatting is a real problem, though. The cost of holding a domain until
someone pays you stupid money for it is just far too low.

------
rabbyte
perhaps the problem can be avoided with an alternative approach. maybe a
decentralized design that determines a name by algorithm rather than decree,
walk the users social graph, let people rename the world in a way that is
fixed to their perspective regardless of device.

~~~
Natanael_L
Basically this;

[https://roamingaroundatrandom.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/web-o...](https://roamingaroundatrandom.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/web-
of-trust-dns/)

------
rproctor
What if all names were auctioned instead of sold at fixed prices?

~~~
jack9
If the auctions aren't periodic, what's the point?

------
33a
Assess property taxes on domain names.

~~~
insoluble
I see what you did there, but you really should have elaborated on the _why_
so that others would understand. To state it myself, a domain would increase
in value as that domain became more desirable -- regardless of whether before
or after registration. This way, a desirable domain would be difficult to
squat by someone not actually using the domain for real business purposes. As
I suggested earlier, a shorter name could cost more since it has inherent
desirability. The tricky thing is finding a good algorithm for calculating
desirability, particularly over time. This approach, of course, is not the
best for non-profit and personal domains.

