Hacker News Reader

Comment by dalke | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand the basis of your question. If it's not specifically required then it's legal.

Building permits and trademarks are required to be public. Other records are not required.

Consider corporate ownership. Some US states allows anonymous corporate ownership. (See http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/09/its-time-to... complaining about such companies.) If it's okay to own a company without that information being public, then why not a domain?

Such companies are used as shell companies. If you want to trademark a name but not have others know that it's you, then start a Nevada LLC, owned by a Delaware LLC, owned by a company registered in the Cayman Islands, owned by you, and have the Nevada company take out the trademark.

Also, the term you want is 'hidden from the public' not 'hidden from the public domain.' "Public domain" applies to, for example, works that were under copyright but are no longer so.

View on HN

> If it's okay to own a company without that information being public, then why not a domain?

Because domains are finite and hold more importance to a business than an actual business name does and by allowing private registration it encourages various entities to sit on the domain indefinitely and prevent others from creating value with it.

I see several limitations in your analysis.

The fundamental one is your insistence on "value." Where is that requirement? How do you define value? If I want 'dalke-email.com' as an email for me and my friends, without a web server or any attached business, then is that sufficient value? What about 'dalke-cat.com', a memorial site in memory of my cat - if a business wants the name, does it get priority over a site that no one else visits?

Assume I have a new-born child named 'Kelly', and buy the domain name 'kellydalke.com', so that I can transfer it a a birthday present in 18 years. Is that value? To you, no, but to me, absolutely yes.

How should the arbitration organization determine things? If your stealth-mode company takes too long to be public, can your domain name be taken away because it hasn't yet contributed value?

You have valid points... I think it sucks that people can sit on domains without using them but you can always make the argument for why they should be allowed to.

So now I have to decide between a .tv or .io domain (or hey I can use .rocks, .world, .xyz!!!)

Do you think it is too risky to keep a name for a social startup (that has big potential) when the .com is taken? if it gets funded and gains traction, is there more of a chance of acquiring the domain down the line?

Have you checked if you have legal means to get the domain? Here in Germany a trademark holder would have reasonable chances of getting control of a domain for the trademark if it isn't used.

I haven't checked but it's a valid point. I think we're going to register the trademark anyways just in case it helps the cause.

One of my co-founders says he thinks that registering it after the fact won't have much affect but who knows. Also, the defunct public relations company that had the same name appears to not be in business and hasnt been for at least ~4-5 years...

I fail to see the connection. If private registration was not allowed, people could still sit on a domain indefinitely. I'm sure many people do this already without private registration.

I use private registration on a few of my domains to avoid unnecessary harassment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com