Sunday, September 12, 2010

Domain drought

It's absurd that all decent domain names are taken, and the great bulk of them aren't used. I wish they'd make a rule that you have to use a domain, or you can't sit on it.
(Update: I would include blog names in this.)

posted by Eolake Stobblehouse @ Sunday, September 12, 2010   6 comments links to this post

6 Comments:

At 12 Sep 2010, 15:31:00, Anonymous Miserere said...

Are you talking about domains or blog names? I recently had to set up a blog at work using the free WordPress.com platform. The first 3 names I wanted were taken...and not used. I was using company initials, so it's not like I had options to come up with fancy names.

I don't know how it is with blogger but with WP once a name is taken, it's taken forever and nobody can reuse it ever again. The amount of names that are taken but not used, or have just a single post for the past 2-3 years is mind-boggling. And yet there they are, hogging perfectly good blog names.

I too would be in favour of enacting a use-it-or-lose-it policy.

 
At 12 Sep 2010, 22:56:00, Blogger eolake said...

I was sort of including both domains and blogs.

And yes, that's just it. I looked up ebus and omnibus on Blogger, and one was taken years ago and never used, and one had three posts in 2002!

 
At 12 Sep 2010, 23:31:00, Anonymous Philocalist said...

Somewhere in the back of my mind is the remains of an article I read some time ago, on the subject of domain names that are held like this.
Apparently, there IS a way to compel the holder to release an unused domain name they may hold, but from memory, I think the first stumbling block was a financial hurdle of several hundreds of pounds, the fee for the application / release of the domain name.
You then had to show that the currrent holder had no direct reason for holding onto the name, other than to re-sell it to a needy customer, AND be that potential needy customer, i.e. someone who would have an obvious and legitimate reason for acquiring it (for the purpose of usingit, rather than simply 'mothballing it again).
So for example, a company holds www.harrods.com, with no interest in the domain name other than selling it as a commodity. Harrods (the shop) could easily argue a demonstrable interest in the domain name, and apply / petition for its release.
In simple terms, that is how it works; unfortunately, I cannot find the link though .....I can see the logic behind it, but I would hazard a guess that in the case of lesser names (which may well be of interest to you, but not a wider audience), you could probably persuade the current owner to transfer it to you for a fee that was less than the 'official' release request application ... logic would seem to be that they are going to lose the domain either way: be compelled to release it without making any money on the deal, or make a profit by agreeing to a transfer?

 
At 12 Sep 2010, 23:33:00, Anonymous Philocalist said...

Oh ... and it's 'drought'! :-)

 
At 12 Sep 2010, 23:56:00, Blogger eolake said...

Damn English.

And isn't it typical that "drought" is pronounced *completely* different from "draught"?

 
At 13 Sep 2010, 03:18:00, Anonymous beatends said...

A glimmer of hope: I have not double checked my facts, but from memory Twitter announced they would recycle unused account names.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VeriSign

The real world: I hardly expect an organization as entrenched as ICAAN to do anything to rock the boat. VeriSign is just a machine to print money. The Wikipedia entries for these two makes depressing reading if you are an advocate of democracy. The link for the Wikipedia article on Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VeriSign

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Website Counter