[anonsivalley652]

That's irrelevant. Local control doesn't apply to a global, shared resource. And, that mismatched metaphor describes infringement on individual property rights because you can't have it both ways.

There can be only one internet namespace if it's to operate correctly, and it can't be controlled by corporations or greedy individuals who think they should get things other people had, and paid for, before them.

If you want a freedom, you must give everyone the same freedom, even if they misuse it. That's the definition of a free society. An unfree society digs into peoples lives and makes value judgements about them and tries to control them to their views.

[jasonjayr]

It becomes a "tragedy of the commons" situation unless there is some regulation of this one shared namespace. Even the FCC has "use it or lose it" rules in place for the limited wireless spectrum.

I mean, isn't that what's happening with property in real life? The ones that can afford to do so keep buying it up, and renting it out, and perpetuating the cycle of inequity?

[buboard]

There is no tragedy of the commons here, its the opposite, people create value on previously worthless dns-land. There is no shortage of TLDs, instead an infinite supply, so its not a zero sum game. Of course demand and supply applies

Housing and spectrum are inherently limited so it makes sense to have ‘homesteading’ rules, especially when they are not even rented out

[jasonjayr]

There really isn't an infinite supply though. There are desirable properties of a domain, including memorability (length of domain, typability, common words).

Sure, something like "eebe8X.com" is usable, but it's not very desirable.

[buboard]

the supply is infinite by design, but that doesn't mean that all supply is equal