It is a tough issue, but I think setting some clear requirements for owning a domain name could go a long way. Restricting domain owners from placing parking pages and requiring them to actively work on an online service, be that a web app, web site, blog, or other online medium which provides sincere value to users. Obviously, these guidelines will go into greater detail and be adjusted as time moves on, but it's better to try to resolve this issue than allow it to continue to deter start-ups.
That's just nonsense. You were going to fail already if you give up because you cannot find a good domain name. Domains are merely a single tool in a giant toolbox to create successful companies. Just because you don't have the absolute best one shouldn't stop you, and if it does, you're doing it wrong.
Just because you don't have the absolute best one shouldn't stop you, and if it does, you're doing it wrong.
It may not stop you, but the system right now sure doesn't help the situation. Shouldn't we work towards improving it for start-up entrepreneurs instead of just ignoring the problem altogether?
You have a very narrow lense it seems. You focus solely on one interest group and single purpose while ignoring all the others. I suspect the answer is no, we shouldn't just focus on helping startup entrepreneurs with the domain name system. There are many stakeholders from various backgrounds that all need to be considered before trying to push through one specific and narrow interest group. In theory, that's what icann and specifically the ALAC is for.
There are many stakeholders from various backgrounds that all need to be considered before trying to push through one specific and narrow interest group.
Yes, each type of "stakeholder" could be reserved a certain type of domain suffix based on their intended purpose of use. These guidelines should of actually been set in place at the onset so we wouldn't have all of the domain squatters we have today. Also, I'd much prefer to discuss potential solutions with you, but I see you've disregarded the notion completely.
Too late. Trillions of dollars have been spent by the various stakeholders branding .com into the minds of the global audience. You cannot simply undo that.
As per my other comment, you're not interested in finding a potential solution. You've got one specific interest and aren't interested in hearing why your solution isn't viable. You simply are waiting for agreement, not a discussion. Here's a solution for startups, use a less than perfect domain until they've proven their worth, got more money and buy a better name. Or, use a lesser extension/subdomain. New gTLDs are around the corner, go pay the 185k fee and get .startup or .beta and create an official startup tld and regulate how you see fit. Let it compete, like a startup should.
Go pay the 185k fee and get .startup or .beta and create an official startup tld and regulate how you see fit. Let it compete, like a startup should.
I'm sorry but most start-ups can't afford 185k for a domain. Plus, re-branding takes another major investment a start-up may not be able to afford. You say "let it compete", but you're defending domain squatters who are making it more difficult to find a good name and market new services to consumers. Hell, there are even some domainers that can't even find a single name for their customer reviews startup. ;)
You don't? By the look of your website's About Page you do:
My Current Job(s):
Working on my own startup - Still looking for a name, but I am working on a customer reviews startup.
Writer at MO.com - I interview entrepreneurs. I've done ~80 interviews as of February 2011 including some big names like Alexis Ohanian (Reddit), Aaron Wall (SEOBook) and David Hauser (Grasshopper.com).
Domain Investor (or Domainer) - I buy, sell, and develop domain names.
I now see why you are so adamant in your defense of domain squatters.
I know exactly what you were hinting at, it wasn't subtle. It was pure ad hominem. However, it's outdated, sorry, you're still wrong :(
My defense isn't of domain squatters, it's of a free market system that trillions of dollars have been invested in by many stakeholders around the globe. Trying to shift them in favor of one specific group (startups) is a joke. I am fairly certain you just want easier access to a better name without understanding the real impact of any proposed solution you have. I am done arguing with you, you are clearly unable to keep on topic.
The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
No, we don't agree to disagree, you are wrong. You haven't made arguments with any value. You attacked character and it IS a logical fallacy in this case.
>Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
You aren't arguing about what is right or should be done. You are trying to imply I am wrong because of my business interests instead of any real issue. You've ignored solutions which fit within your arguments but you don't like the outcome (like a .startup TLD or using subdomains yourself). You clearly see the value in .com which everyone has recognized but want to monopolize it for yourself under the guise of the greater good.
You may be new at this, but because of my history, I've heard each argument hundreds of times, you haven't come up with anything new; thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders.
thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders.
I appreciate the dialogue.
I admit my proposed solution may not be the best at this moment, and does not accommodate all stakeholders, especially domain squatters. It probably is already too late to implement my proposed solution anyway. The domain system in place right now has evolved to such a state that the .com domain has a monopoly over the domain system. The .com has been ingrained in the mindset of most internet users as the end-all be-all due to the unrestriction and initial web registration mind share. This is now being taken advantage of by domainers. They purchase thousands of domains, in the hopes of profiting off of a lucky few. Who gets hurt in all of this? The others. John can't get the name for his blog, Amy sees her cake business's name is taken, Kevin has to buy ICantFindADotComDomainNameSoIBoughtThis.ly. Why? Because domainers aren't thinking of the external effects of their actions and just want to make an easy buck for themselves, manipulating the system to their sole benefit. In short, Pure Greed.
This supply shortage of decent .com names is only going to get worse as internet usage increases. My hope is, as this continues, that .com domains become of less value and internet users become more comfortable with alternative TLDs.
Summary:
Domainers are of no help to society. They must perish. =)
Yawn. There is no shortage (36^63 combos). Everyone who keeps saying this just thinks they are entitled to the best option available. Again, you ignore the proposed solution which fits your goals but don't like where the result takes you. You're just ignorant and want to complain, you don't want a solution, you want to just be better off for yourself.
No, I want a solution that deters domain squatters and is overall better for most people. Maybe, there should just be a cap on how many domains one can own at a time. But domainers would probably complain about that too and make some hypocritical remarks about how this restricts their internet rights, when what they do restricts the internet even worse.
You're just ignorant and want to complain, you don't want a solution, you want to just be better off for yourself.
I think this statement represents domainers such as you perfectly. May I ask, can you name one benefit domainers provide to people?
You don't have a better solution, plenty of companies have enormous portfolios of domains. This also wouldn't free up the better names, the best ones would simply be allocated into different management companies, only the marginally profitable ones would be let go. There is no shortage of domains and nobody is restricting anyone's right to a domain. Just because I own a name doesn't mean you've lost a right to domains, you have the exact same rights you always did, the freedom to register a domain that nobody else has purchased. The same position everyone else is in, equally. You have not proposed any objective way to measure and define better. Utility in a real market is hard if not impossible to measure. You think it's your right to have a better domain name? It's not. Welcome to capitalism, where a free market dictates how resources are used. But they are blocking valuable startups you say. If the company is actually viable and successful they can surely purchase it when their utility is greater than the current owner. That's the beauty of capitalism. When someone else's utility is greater than my own, they can purchase my asset and it becomes theirs. Simple.
May I ask why I have to use my capital for YOUR benefit? Since it's mine, I can do whatever I want with it. That's the nature of capitalism and freedom. Just because you don't like or even agree with what I do doesn't mean the system is broken. You ask for the same protections, if not more, for your own assets, but want to take others' protections away. Your arguments, if they can even be considered such, boil down to "you suck, it's unfair someone has the name I rightfully deserve for no apparent reason other than I want it, and we should change the system so I get what I want." Go try that in the nicer area of your city/state/province with a lot of vacation rentals. Tell a homeowner that you need that property more than they do because they have another home and how it's more fair that you get it.
Tell a homeowner that you need that property more than they do because they have another home and how it's more fair that you get it.
Your real estate analogy is a flawed one, especially in today's domain environment. A more accurate analogy would be an overpopulation of people (financially stable mind you) forced to live in cardboard boxes due to real estate investors buying up neighborhoods of good homes, bumping up their prices, and not returning phone calls. Plus, real estate investors in the real world at least try to maintain their property and improve it through actual work. Domainers just park pages.
May I ask why I have to use my capital for YOUR benefit? Since it's mine, I can do whatever I want with it. That's the nature of capitalism and freedom. Just because you don't like or even agree with what I do doesn't mean the system is broken.
Just because something is a product of capitalism doesn't mean it can't be broken by selfish extremists. How do you think we got in this recent financial fiasco? One word, greed. Sometimes there needs to certain measures of regulation to ensure individuals are not taking advantage of the system at the expense of others. That is all I'm saying. There comes a point when a foot has to be put down after a certain threshold, especially when the majority of people in a system are being hurt by these extremists.
Except nobody is being hurt in this case. There are infinite available domains for all intents and purposes. The real estate analogy is fine, you just don't live in the really nice neighborhood. You live in a cheaper one. Or perhaps in a .info ghetto. You still have a house, it's just not a mansion on the beach. Unless you pay for it. People aren't harmed by not having a the best domain available.
What's ironic is you actually picked an example I DID answer back in 2008. But I guess you did just a quick google search instead of actually reading the messages.
These people aren't harmed by domainers owning the domain they want. They simply think they could better themselves with ownership. Those are two very different things. Just because someone thinks they come up with something clever and deserve it doesn't mean they actually do. If someone else purchased it first, they clearly didn't have some magical unique insight, upon which, they deserve some special rights. Some of these people aren't hurt at all, they are just being greedy and feel something is unfair because the outcome wasn't optimal for them. Others, made mistakes and want to blame someone (they actually failed to renew their own domain, and used a bad registration company, not domainers' fault). Others still, are simply inquiring how to get domains.
What's ironic is you actually picked an example I DID answer back in 2008. But I guess you did just a quick google search instead of actually reading the messages.
Ironic or intentional? ;)
It's quite clear you don't care about anything other than the well-being of domainers. I am done debating with you. You win pal.
I care very much about many things, especially that people get treated right. Domainer or otherwise. I think the system has to be fair. I've come out publicly against companies with bad business practices and pointed out flaws in the system. (For example http://kevinohashi.com/15/04/2011/domain-registrar-and-custo...)
I also have been freely providing tools for anyone to use to aid in their domain search since I got started (first one being published in 2004ish).
Don't pretend as if you've kept an open mind about any of this. You've tried to discredit me personally multiple times now and never once even acknowledged your own hypocrisy even when it's patently obvious and pointed out. You simply skip along to the next superfluous argument. This should have been over long ago.
