[foo101]

Squatting can be easily prevented by reclaiming domain names without refund when the domain names have not been used or used illegitimately for more than a fixed threshold period of time.

Parking pages or any other use that intends to work around the restriction can be deemed illegitimate use.

[skrause]

> Parking pages or any other use that intends to work around the restriction can be deemed illegitimate use.

My personal domain doesn't even have an A record in the DNS, only an MX record because use it for all my email. By your definition that would be an "illegitimate use" and I should lose my domain...

[kerkeslager]

Would it be an undue burden to require people like you to put up a page saying, "This is my personal domain which I use primarily for email."?

Can we just agree that nobody is posting the full proposed set of rules on HN, and nobody is trying to take away your domain?

Every time this solution to domain squatting is proposed, someone counters with your objection as if it's a huge problem with the idea, but it just isn't. Surely you can imagine a set of rules that shuts down a large number of domain squatters but allows your use case.

[jefftk]

How do you write rules that allow "this is my personal domain that I use for email" and not squatting? Can't the squatters just say something along those lines?

[kerkeslager]

Sure, they can say that.

And if they are a big company that owns hundreds of thousands of unrelated domains with no apparent email traffic, it would be pretty obvious that it's untrue.

So sure, a lot of small bad actors would get away with it. But it would could potentially take out the biggest bad actors.

[franga2000]

If the squatters have to do that, then their squatting has no value to them. The point of squatters is to eventually sell the domain and if all the domains look "in use" (so no parking allowed), the amount of people sending offers will fall.

[kortilla]

What a joke, within days of such rules being announced, a system would emerge to discover which domains might be willing to sell even though they would put up an “in-use” page.

[franga2000]

Still much better than the current system. At least users who aren't familiar with it would just see the domain is "taken" and move along, not see a billion ads and a "contact us to buy" button. I've seen people who didn't even realize that was "outside the system" and thought that's how domains are supposed to be sold.

And either way, even a bad countermeasure would be better than nothing, as it would show that squatting is not longer tolerated. It would set a precedent for stricter regulation later on, because as it stands right now, ICANN is actively ignoring the problem and happily collecting their 14¢ fees.

As for a better solution, first ban all advertisement of peer-to-peer sales of domain names (so only registrars may offer a domain for sale). That should improve the situation significantly.

[anonsivalley652]

The "domain squatting" meme is intellectually dishonest and based on envy. People who buy zillions of domains must be allowed if people are allowed to buy as many stamps, boxes of paper, cars, jet skis or houses as they wish. It's called freedom, property rights and being consistent. If you want one of their domains that they registered and paid for before you so badly, inquire if they will sell it; if they choose to or not is their choice, and you are not entitled to it simply because you want it.

[toyg]

Domains are real estate. Periodic land reform / redistribution is a staple of human history, when things become patently unbalanced for society as a whole.

[franga2000]

The difference between domain names and let's say cars or boxes of paper, as you put it, is so obvious, I didn't think it needed saying. It's that (usable) domains are a unique and finite, whereas all your other examples are neither. You can't just wait for the next batch of domains to come out of the factory and buy them from their manufacturer (new gTLDs were an attempt at that and failed miserably).

It's the same problem as land. We have more and more people that need it, yet the supply is by definition finite. Hoarding it for yourself not only contributes nothing to the community, it actively prevents others from doing so.

[ryanlol]

> The "domain squatting" meme is intellectually dishonest and based on envy

Yup. Still waiting to hear a more nuanced explanation of the supposed “problem” than this.

[ryanlol]

> Would it be an undue burden to require people like you to put up a page saying, "This is my personal domain which I use primarily for email."?

Yes, this is a terrible idea.

> Surely you can imagine a set of rules that shuts down a large number of domain squatters but allows your use case.

Nope, how do you intend to perform these usage audits?

[namibj]

Random, but focused on those who register many domains?

[ryanlol]

That doesn’t really explain the implementation. How would you know that two domains are owned by the same person without completely revamping the role of registrars?

[vibrafox]

The MX record should be enough.

[anonsivalley652]

I hate to say it, but "domain squatters" pay for domains like everyone else. You have to take the shit with the sugar in a free society, not shit on everyone's personal liberties with Code of Conducts or "occupation" requirements. There's no perfect policy or "solution" that can fix every moral panic without causing other problems. And not every moral panic needs to be fixed either. That's life, sorry.

[bobbydroptables]

The fact that they can pay for it doesn't mean they're entitled to it as a logical matter.

I'm not saying a fix is or isn't needed, but there are all kinds of things we restrict despite ability to pay. For example, you can't buy a social security number without a person or a physical address without physical land to tie it to.

Your comment doesn't prove your conclusion.

[anonsivalley652]

Yep. Busy bodies and control freaks shouldn't be allowed anywhere near power because they will abuse it and subject others to their fascist views. People should be allowed to do whatever they legally please with their domains.. it's their property, so long as they continue "leasing" them.

[wan23]

Domain names are a limited resource and some are more valuable than others. They should be treated more like the way we treat land, where highly valuable land is heavily taxed to incentivize people to actually use it or sell it.

[anonsivalley652]

You come across as possibly stuck in a scarcity and/or entitlement mindset too. There are effectively an unlimited supply of domains, and you're perfectly free to pick another one. If you want the right to register as many unregistered domains as you wish, bid on registered ones and generally live in a free society, you must accept that there are some unpreventable problems that come with it: like suicidal idiots with knifes, jerks who cut you off in traffic and "domain squatters." Aren't there bigger things to worry about, rather than worrying about what other people are doing with their property? It's not yours, after all, just because you covet it like Golum.

[wan23]

I'm not sure why you think domains are property. When you "buy" a domain you're really leasing the right to use it for a fixed length of time. And anyway, the system of assigning names is not fixed upon stones sent to us from the heavens. Our goal should be to have a system that is as useful and fair as possible.

[kuku4]

what's wrong with that?

[TorKlingberg]

Good luck defining "legitimate use" in a way the squatters won't get around.

[StavrosK]

I don't see that as very easy, given that there are degrees of parking pages and it can be hard to figure out where to draw the line.

[mopsi]

Not to mention that there are many other uses for a domain, such as email.

[kerkeslager]

Yes, but can we agree that one company owning thousands of domains with a "buy this domain for $XXXX" homepages crosses any line that we would draw?

The domain squatting problem is so bad, that even just solving the most egregious cases would be a big improvement.

[ryanlol]

>The domain squatting problem is so bad

How is the domain squatting problem so bad? You’ll need to expand on this further.

[franga2000]

Not OP, but are you saying you haven't noticed the squatting problem? According to [0], there are only around 1000 single-word .COMs left.

[0] https://www.domcomp.com/blog/the-last-coms.html

[ryanlol]

Why is it such a big problem that you have to pay more than $7 for a single word .com? Is it just that it feels unfair to you for someone to be profiting like this?

I’ve been more than happy to buy domains from these squatters, they’re usually willing to accept prices far lower than the value I can extract from said domains.

[kerkeslager]

> Is it just that it feels unfair to you for someone to be profiting like this?

There are other reasons, but I'm a bit confused why this isn't something you find objectionable.

In theory, a free market should incentivize people to create value. But here's a case where people are literally removing value which was previously available, and getting paid to do it: if there ever was a perverse incentive, this is it.

From reading your comments, it seems like you think that anything that "freedom" = "anything the free market does". This is pretty fundamentally misguided, because if you don't have any rules to prevent people from amassing too much power, you just end up with rules set forth by whoever you've let take power. If you refuse to make rules, you're simply accepting the rules made by someone who doesn't refuse to make rules.

[franga2000]

I guess you're technically correct in that the several thousands of $ these domains usually go for is "more than 7$" and in fact, I don't have a problem paying a high price for something valuable to me. I have a problem paying an unpredictable unregulated price to a completely third party just because they "got there first". Buying from a squatter benefits the squatter (a 3rd party) and to some extent the providers (registries, registrars, ICANN), but harms the end consumer. To me, that is the exact opposite of how things should be done. Consumer first, companies second, random third parties last.

[StavrosK]

"More than $7" is disingenuous, since $100,000 is also "more than $7".

[lazysheepherd]

How hard do you think it would be for those people to automate setting up basic template websites for all of domains they are hoarding?

If we were to apply this, as with any poorly thought-out rule, only legitimate users will be affected. Anyone proposing an "easy" solution to a complex problem should think twice before speaking.

[kortilla]

This is a very myopic view of what domains are used for. Putting up web pages is certainly a huge use-case, but it’s not the only one (email, server naming, iot naming, network infra naming, etc).

[mekster]

Who is going to define illegitimacy? And how to figure if the domain is not used? Domains aren't all about the web...

That's not going to work.