You have to weigh that against investing, even in just a HYSA, that 10 year outlay. Not a big deal if you only have a couple domains but it can add up quickly.
This isn’t an 11% hike to the total cost of the domain it’s more like .2% on a typical $10 fee.
Be careful with novelty TLDs, these aren't capped and some owners take full advantage of it to extort clients: they offer really cheap domains for the first few years, and then massively hike the price. Some businesses can't afford a domain change and are forced to pay up.
Generally, my advice would be to stick to country code TLDs.
>Generally, my advice would be to stick to country code TLDs.
Why? Unless you're talking about the country code of the same country you are operating in, (mis)using ccTLDs is basically gambling your domain's survival on the generosity of the country or even the very survival of the country itself. See Mali taking back .ml domain for a recent example.
Just stick to .net, .org or maybe .com for stability sake with only slightly higher but capped pricing.
I look at the five year or ten year registration rate. Also, I register it for the max duration possible, which is five or ten years, so at least I won't get extorted in that time.
Cool. Novelty domains for well established dot coms. Now go build a startup that you expect to build up and still own yourself 10 years from now using a .xyz domain.
It is why I don't use .xyz, but there are others that are cheap, e.g. .top. Moreover, one can always get additional domains later for the public image.
Enterprises are increasingly blocking a lot of the random TLDs. So unless you want your service and site to be inaccessible for people with deep pockets, avoid most TLDs.
ICANN requires accurate personal information from you which is worse than what a Google account requires. A competitor to ICANN could be more private by not requiring a dox of everyone who wants a domain.
Ownership costs of the domain names is certainly NOT the correct tool control the problem of domain squatting. Some players like rich individuals or big companies will still have enough wealth to squat as many domains as they like. Meanwhile, others with legitimate needs like citizens of low-income countries and small enterprises, will be priced out of the market.
Keep in mind that domain names aren't used just for naming web sites or services. It's a distributed metadata distribution system with several other uses like mail server config, numerous TXT record types, WKD etc. If you take the stance that only the affluent should be allowed to access those services, it will defeat the purpose of the entire system.
The real problem with the DNS is that its design makes it amenable to economic exploitation. It's true that the system takes economic resources to maintain. I'm fine with paying that cost and don't believe that it would make domain names unaffordable. But ICANN and the others are certainly demonstrating increasingly rent seeking behavior lately.
In my country's TLD there were a lot of domains that were parked when it was free to register and then they became available.
PoW is a great proven way to combat fraud also.
Right now attackers can create a new domain and a new identity for 10USD, whether a phishing domain or a malicious brand.
That said, there's a lot of TLDs nowadays, and arguably what made .com popular was this precise price combination, which should only be adjusted for inflation, and arguably to adjust for exhaustion of names.
If you want to experiment with TLDs with higher cost of entry, go ahead and find another TLD, or setup an LLC with your domain and distinguish yourself from your competitors.
You don't NEED to. If a TLD has a bad reputation, like TLDs that sell for less than .COM prices usually have, then you can just block users from those domains entirely.
"Sorry, please use another address".
Odds are you are not missing much from a user@cryptoaicompany.xyz if they couldn't spend 10$ in a decent domain.
Wrong, with large userbases you're going to lose business doing that, many real businesses using novelty TLDs, at least in the industry I'm working in now. Plus I think it should be illegal from an net neutrality perspective to treat different TLDs differently and to outright deny service.
> Wrong, with large userbases you're going to lose business doing that, many real businesses using novelty TLDs
Yes, a security filtering system can have false positives. Can't get them all.
> "Plus I think it should be illegal from an net neutrality perspective "
This is what you would say if your only conception of law comes from reading stuff on the internet about the internet. I don't think you've had much legal training.
I think in the US they call it right to refuse service. It's not a law per-se but rather a right businesses have unless prohibited by other reasons. One such reason being discrimination of protected classes, like races, sexuality, gender. But they need to be one of the specific classes protected by law, you can discriminate against small businesses for example, that's just business.
Those projects are funded from auctions around 2012 and fund management since, which is a fund separate from ICANN's own accounting. Some people really, really wanted .blog or whatever, and the proceeds of the resulting auctions went into a fund that was to be spent on… I'm not well informed, but the money for at least one of those projects came from that fund. The others may too. https://domainincite.com/20440-wordpress-reveals-it-bought-b... Domain Incite also has other articles covering this subject area, some with profanity, all well-informed.
These price hikes have a simple reason: ICANN's per-year per-domain fee was not adjusted by inflation and most of the expenses do grow with inflation. No matter how well or badly ICANN spends its money, at some point a flat price was going to run into inflation-bound expenses and lose.
Feel free to criticise the Māori project, or ICANN's arguably wasteful meetings, or whatever you want, but please don't confuse the money in that fund with the budget for ICANN's operations.
