[pmontra]

I think many of us have been looking for an available domain for a site and found all of them registered years before and parked since then.

The normal way to proceed is look for another name and try again. Mehta is doing it wrong.

However I don't like the general idea of squatting, also on domains. I'd be happy if there was an easy way to prevent it. Somebody suggested incremental renewal fees for unused domains, but how to tell if a domain is unused? It won't be difficult to automate some "working" site for parked domains (think of those blogs that are populated with content automatically scraped from real sites.) Other ideas?

[gst]

If you define "unused" domain as "doesn't have a working website associated to it" then this definition is (imo) wrong. The internet is more than just websites. I have several domains that don't have any websites associated with them, but I still use them for things such as email, hostnames, etc.

[pmontra]

That's a legitimate use and that's another reason for it is difficult to detect if a domain is used.

[larrys]

Why does it need to be prevented exactly? Why is the internet different than anything other situation where people see an opportunity to make money and take advantage of that opportunity? Like buying real estate or wine, or art and so on?

It is trivial anyway to "use" a domain name. Are you further suggesting that someone who is legitimately "using" a domain name (and who is going to decide what use is anyway) then can't sell that domain name? And does that mean they can't sell the business that is attached to that domain name? Or you are going to have some tribunal that looks into the facts of every single case and decides 'ok this is a "real" business the domain can be sold, "no this isn't sorry"'?

[nnain]

Because, it favours those who have more money. People who can afford a few dollars/pounds, mostly from the western countries, can keep domains booked for years. Others in the developing or under-developed world don't have that luxury... but the internet is a more global/democratic place... or should be.

[larrys]

You haven't really said why that should matter though. There are other alternatives and essentially many things in the world favor "those who have more money", right?

[rwallace]

In my opinion, it is wrong to sit on a scarce resource that you didn't create and are not using, thereby preventing anyone else making use of it.

Wine and art are dissimilar cases because they can be created in as large a quantity as there is a market for.

Real estate, on the other hand, is a very similar case, and in my opinion there should be laws against playing dog in the manger with real estate - either an outright ban or a hefty penalty in the form of extra property tax.

Though I'm not quite sure how you would go about defining and enforcing such laws for domain names.

[larrys]

It is not a scare resource. It is simply, like with wine or art, viewed as valuable by those who have decided that they want it and don't want the easily available alternatives. [1]

If you can't get ycombinator.com you can get yycombinator.net or ycombinator.somenewtld (that was just released).

And Wine and Art of the type that has value can't be created in as large a quantity as there is a market for anyway (cheaper mass produced wine can of course). If there wasn't scarcity the value would not be as great. With domains the reason the value is high is similar. There is only one "bell.com" and if you want that name and not "thebell.com" or bell.xyz you need to pay the person who got to it first (legitimately I might add).

This is all just sour grapes. Somebody wakes up one morning and decides that life isn't fair because the domain that they want is owned by someone else. Might even be a bakery on main street that got to "mycakes.com" first (made that up ..)

> "Real estate, on the other hand, is a very similar case, and in my opinion there should be laws against playing dog in the manger with real estate - either an outright ban or a hefty penalty in the form of extra property tax."

Ridiculous free market system works like this and always has. You are free today to buy real estate at absolute bargain prices in Newark NJ and sit on it for years and try to make some money later. Go a short distance north and you will end up in Manhattan where you won't buy a parking space for the same 4x price. What do you want to do now have the state take all property that people have acquired legitimately and redistribute it? Ridiculous.

[1] And maybe when someone decides to name their company they should consider what names they can buy prior to deciding to use a domain that they will not be able to buy, and then crying about how unfair the system is because it is not available right?