0

(No idea if this is the right place... couldn't really see anywhere suitable, sorry!)

It's been in a couple of different threads... and I'm going to bandy it around a couple of communities...


You can say what you like, the truth of the matter is that there are people and businesses who purposefully bought domains with the sole intention of extolling money from others - at ridiculous amounts.

If you've built more than a few sites, the chances are good that when you have looked up DNs, you have found at least a couple that are not actually doing anything - there is no real website... it's simply a stupid little directory, advert system or generic holding page.
Some of these things have been there for years.

Should this be permitted?

I've seen arguments supporting this type of thing (usually from people that themselves do it).
I've seen some wonderful analogies and justifications...

So I'll throw some fish into the same pond and see what happens.

It's the same as buying a patent.
Not true - Patents run out after a time.
Further, applying for the Patent is not the same as receiving the Patent.

It's the same as purchasing land.
Not true - in most countries, there are laws for development production. You are only able to retain the land if it is in use, even if it is arable land. If local developments are needed, or someone offers to bring benefits to the location through use of that land, then the owners are often offered an incentive to sell, or told to sell.
Additionally, under certain circumstances, it is possible for the local authorities to reclaim the land and disperse it as they see fit.

They're paying the Rent, so who cares.
Not true - if that was they case, there wouldn't already be Squatter laws regarding such occurrences in many countries.
Further, in countries such as the UK, there are organisations that control the Rent Rates - they stop Landlords overcharging tenants. As you cannot actually "own" the domain, only rent it, there should be similar!

Now, I'm not suggesting that the owners of these domains loose them outright.... nor should they suffer financial loss.
I do think that there ought to be strict guidelines governing the control of such domains and the usage of such.

I think, out of all the examples I can think of, the Patent Laws are the closest.


Initially obtaining the Domain ought to be at Rate One. (.com for 10)

Thereafter, re-paying should be at a lower cost, Rate Two. (Repurchase .com for 7)

If the domain is not being used, then it is returned to the DN Pool, (as happens when not re-registered).

If a Domain is not used for "legitimate" purposes, it has a certain Life-Span. After that time period has elapsed, if no legitimate usage has been applied, it should be returned to the Pool.

If a DN is owned, but not used, and it is requested by a third party, the Owner has the right to sell. The amount they are able to sell for should depend upon the DN and the time owned. If they have only owned it for a short period, they can charge at XXX times the rate they paid, (x20 the Value). If they have owned it for a moderate time, they can only charge XX times the rate they paid, (x13 the Value). If they have owned it for a long time, they only get X times the rate they paid, (x6 the Value).
Thus a .com charged at 10 to purchase could be sold for 200, 130 and 60 for each year farmed.
This is termed as Period Capping.

DN's that have reached the maximum Illegitimate rental period and returned to the pool cannot be re-applied for and used for "Farming" for at least 1 Year. This would be termed as the Safe Period.

Further, there should be a Rebirth Period. This means that if the Domain is left in the pool or purchased for legitimate usage and stays as such for 3 or more years, (exclusive of the Safe Period), then it can be considered as Re-Spawned and can start at the top values again for Farming.

If a company re-purchases the Domain for Farming a second time, (after waiting the safe period above), then they are limited to a lower Multiplier, (x 14, x9 and x4 respectively).
Thus a .com repurchased at 10 to could be sold for 140, 90 and 40 for each year farmed.
This would keep on applying... thus eventually there is no point in Farming a certain domain as it will end up providing no profit.

Have I covered the agreements?
Have I provided enough "fair" ideas?

At least with the above suggestions it enables the business minded folks who want to make money farming domain names the chance to do so, whilst ensuring that real business folk and web owners have the chance to get what would suit them the most.
No extortionate fees.
No stupid legal battles.
No more silly reasoning!


So go on... lets see who can bash me the hardest

2
Contributors
2
Replies
4
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by autocrat
0

I have always wondered why anyone was allowed to make money off of domain names by selling them - including ICANN.

The real problem is that there are not enough suffixes.

Anyone with a registered trademark should automatically get the domain names with that trade name for the countries the trademark is registered in.

0

I dunno, I took the approach of having tiered costs over time (capping) as some domains are registered, then some one goes and sets up a company and registers trademarks, names and designs.... then finds out they do not have sole privilege to a matching domain.

I can see, from the cold business view, that it is a potential avenua of good profits - I just do not think charging someone hundreds, (hell, some try for thousands!), for somethign that cost them at most 15!

It's disgusting - which is why I feel it ought to be regulated.


But you are corret, there are not enough suffixes/extensions... maybe making a "2" would do.... as most countries hae a 2 letter extension... maybe adding a number on to the end would suffice?
(e.g. www.whatever.uk, www.whatever.uk1, www.whatever.uk2 etc.).

Then again, the original busiess idea is to be unique and standout... and stop "name-hangars" cashing in on prfits by purchasing similar names - I advise all clietns to get .com and .co.uk if possible... as those are the most likely to be associated suffixes).


Hell, if you look at it, the entire structure is poor... you ought to get a reduction for bying the domain name with multile extensions... so by the .com, .co.uk and .net for a greatly reduced price :)

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.