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't get sold and nobody uses them.<p>Should ICANN intervene here? It doesn't SEEM fair and I think there should be some restrictions to prevent this.
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.
<p><pre><code> People asking questions, lost in confusion
Well, I tell them there's no problem, only solutions
- John Lennon
</code></pre>
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.<p>[1] <a href="https://geti2p.net/en/docs/naming" rel="nofollow">https://geti2p.net/en/docs/naming</a><p>[2] Even <a href="http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/squarezooko" rel="nofollow">http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/squarezooko</a> is susceptible to squatting by those who can invest (or rent) computing power.<p>PS: I had a chance recently to talk with a "DNSquatter": the doorman at a building I frequent. Poor guy bought <i>tens of thousands</i> 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 <i>chumpatron</i>[3], rather than the scammer himself; although his actions do help keep the scam alive. I advised him to consider the money lost.<p>[3] <a href="http://www.loper-os.org/?p=1446" rel="nofollow">http://www.loper-os.org/?p=1446</a>
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.
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.<p>But then the problem is, do we want someone policing what the definition of 'using' a domain is? Hell no.<p>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'.
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.
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.<p>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.<p>One of the fundamental rules of this world is that if something <i>can</i> be abused, it <i>will</i> 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.
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.<p>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.<p>If you can't afford it, well, you have countless other domain extensions you can choose from at a cheaper rate.<p>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.
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?<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>Disclaimer: I haven't tried this. I'm afraid trademark claims might only be honored for big companies, not for the little guys.
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?
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.<p>perhaps not the best way, but certainly a way to go about it.
ICANN is profiting from squatters far more than from your average domain owner. It's not in their best interests to intervene.<p>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.
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.