New ICANN policy stops domain tasting | Hacker News Reader

New ICANN policy stops domain tasting

news.cnet.com

63 pointsjohns18 comments

Yay. ICANN redeems itself just a little bit.

I'm all for a grace period of a year after a domain has been owned by another party. Just like old phone numbers.

Why?

I'm aware of several parked domains that I'd sort of like. If they expire because their current owner decides to save the domain fees, I'll think about picking them up and using them.

Why should I have to wait a year?

That's just a longer "tasting" period.

domain tasting refers to the ability to return a domain within a certain amount of time and to get a refund.

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

In the case above the domain would no longer be interesting for spammers because the traffic would have died down, substantially increasing your chances of getting it for legit purposes.

It would also reduce the chances of expired domains being used for phishing.

About fucking time.

Far, far too long coming.

"ICANN said the new policy resulted in a 99.7 percent decrease in domain deletions from June 2008 to April 2009."

Looks like they nailed it. Can't ask for much better than that.

Certainly a nice stat to see, but what I think would be significantly more interesting is data on bulk buyers of domains. After all, a drop in deletions says nothing about the purchasing of said domains; what would be great to see is a drop in bulk domain purchases.

The problem wasn't "tasting", the problem was that too many domains are being held. Now the situation might be even worse...

I disagree. Tasting put a huge load on the TLD registries, requiring upgrades that us legitimate domain owners ended up paying for. Also, tasters are not going to start buying tons of domains, since tasted domains are by definition unprofitable to hold.

That is fantastic. I agree with jacquesm's comment too.

Your comment should have been an upvote on his post. Just a friendly reminder.

I thought upvotes were for comments that were worth reading, not comments we agreed with?

I probably should have gone into more detail about what it was I thought was fantastic, I guess. Thanks for the feedback!

Upvotes mean "yes", and also "Please move this up the page a bit". Downvotes mean "no", and also "Please remove this from the page".

Interpret as you see fit. Agreement is a perfectly good reason to say "yes" to something.

For a group that emphasizes thinking for oneself, it sure seems that there are a lot of rules for when it is or is not appropriate to vote on something. How about letting people decide for themselves what to vote on?

Agreed. Hence the "interpret as you see fit".

The fact is, to the site, an upvote means "please move this up the page", and a downvote or flag means "please remove this". At a most basic primal 2-year-old communication level, up is "yes" and down is "no".

This duality I find annoying - I want to be able to upvote with reasoning, even if there are just two vote types "Yes/No" and "Up/Down". Then I can show agreement or show that someone added to the thread but didn't say something I agree with.

The source is open. Go build that. Users will either respond to it, or they won't.

If I build it will HN implement it? I rather suspect not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com