Domain Resale Code of Ethics - Revision history

Woozle at 14:39, 27 March 2006

2006-03-27T14:39:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:39, 27 March 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	In the face of the rising tide of [[~~Domain Name Squatting~~]], which deprives all but the best-funded enterprises and individuals of the use of uncounted thousands of domain names, I hereby propose a code of ethics for reselling domain names. Comments and suggestions are welcome.		In the face of the rising tide of [[htyp:domain name squatting\|domain name squatting]], which deprives all but the best-funded enterprises and individuals of the use of uncounted thousands of domain names, I hereby propose a code of ethics for reselling domain names. Comments and suggestions are welcome on the {{talkpage}}.
			==Wherefore==
	==Rules==		Domains of interest to multiple parties should not be used for trivial purposes, such as revenue generation through pay-per-click advertising without any useful content. It is in the interest of minimizing the wasteful use of such domains that the following rules are proposed.
	~~These seem like some pretty '''definite should~~-~~be rules''':~~		==Proposed Rules==
	*~~The sale~~ price should not be in excess of twice the amount invested in the domain's registration (i.e. the ~~initial~~ registration ~~plus renewal~~ fees).		(revised 2006-03-27)
	*The seller may make efforts to ensure that the domain will be used as the home for a site that is substantially useful, rather than just being resold to the highest bidder.		* Domain names may also have a set asking price, and be retained by the seller until another party offers to buy at the set price; however, this price should not be in excess of twice the amount invested in the domain's registration (i.e. the total of all registration fees paid for the domain by the seller).
			* Domain names may be sold at auction, as this allows the marketplace to set a fair price; someone who has paid a substantial amount for a domain is unlikely to use it for trivial purposes. The auction reserve or initial asking price should not be higher than the set price given above.
	~~Some '''maybe-~~should-be ~~rules''':~~		* The seller may make efforts to ensure that the domain will be used as the home for a site that is substantially useful, rather than just being resold to the highest bidder, but this is not required.
	*The sale price should ~~not~~ be ~~in excess of the total amount invested in the domain's~~ registration, or ~~$100, whichever is less~~.		* A domain name that is not being used purposefully should not be retained for longer than (say) two years; it should either be auctioned, its registration not renewed, or its resale price should be set significantly lower than the maximum described above. ''(This part needs some work.)''
			==Notes==
	'''Notes~~''':~~		* In the early days, when [[WikiPedia:InterNIC\|InterNIC]] was the only domain registrar, initial registration for all TLDs was $100 ($50/year, two years' initial registration required).
	*In the early days, when [[WikiPedia:InterNIC\|InterNIC]] was the only domain registrar, initial registration for all TLDs was $100 ($50/year, two years' initial registration required).		* Need to come up with a more detailed definition/description of what constitutes "purposeful" vs. "exploitative" uses of domain names
	*~~Do we want~~ a ~~binding contract to enforce the stated use~~ of ~~the sold~~ domain~~, so as to prevent reselling to the highest bidder? Or would it be better to find some other way to punish fraudulent purchasers, e.g. a blacklist?~~
	==Issues==		==Issues==
	*'''Enforcement''': Once we have a code which seems reasonable to most people, how do we get domain resellers to adopt it? A number of tools suggest themselves, though I'm sure there are some I haven't thought of:		*'''Enforcement''': Once we have a code which seems reasonable to most people, how do we get domain resellers to adopt it? A number of tools suggest themselves, though I'm sure there are some I haven't thought of:
Line 17:		Line 16:
	**A whitelist of resellers known to follow the spirit of the code		**A whitelist of resellers known to follow the spirit of the code
	**A blackist of resellers known ''not'' to follow the spirit of the code		**A blackist of resellers known ''not'' to follow the spirit of the code

	~~==Comments==~~

Woozle: /* Issues */

2005-07-03T13:55:07Z

Issues

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:55, 3 July 2005
Line 13:		Line 13:
	*Do we want a binding contract to enforce the stated use of the sold domain, so as to prevent reselling to the highest bidder? Or would it be better to find some other way to punish fraudulent purchasers, e.g. a blacklist?		*Do we want a binding contract to enforce the stated use of the sold domain, so as to prevent reselling to the highest bidder? Or would it be better to find some other way to punish fraudulent purchasers, e.g. a blacklist?
	==Issues==		==Issues==
	*Once we have a code which seems reasonable to most people, how do we get domain resellers to adopt it? A number of tools suggest themselves, though I'm sure there are some I haven't thought of:		*'''Enforcement''': Once we have a code which seems reasonable to most people, how do we get domain resellers to adopt it? A number of tools suggest themselves, though I'm sure there are some I haven't thought of:
	**A banner which only conforming sites may use (much like banners provided by other trust-enhancing services)		**A banner which only conforming sites may use (much like banners provided by other trust-enhancing services)
	**A whitelist of resellers known to follow the spirit of the code		**A whitelist of resellers known to follow the spirit of the code
	**A blackist of resellers known ''not'' to follow the spirit of the code		**A blackist of resellers known ''not'' to follow the spirit of the code

	==Comments==		==Comments==

Woozle: /* Comments */

2005-07-03T13:54:43Z

Comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:54, 3 July 2005
Line 12:		Line 12:
	*In the early days, when [[WikiPedia:InterNIC\|InterNIC]] was the only domain registrar, initial registration for all TLDs was $100 ($50/year, two years' initial registration required).		*In the early days, when [[WikiPedia:InterNIC\|InterNIC]] was the only domain registrar, initial registration for all TLDs was $100 ($50/year, two years' initial registration required).
	*Do we want a binding contract to enforce the stated use of the sold domain, so as to prevent reselling to the highest bidder? Or would it be better to find some other way to punish fraudulent purchasers, e.g. a blacklist?		*Do we want a binding contract to enforce the stated use of the sold domain, so as to prevent reselling to the highest bidder? Or would it be better to find some other way to punish fraudulent purchasers, e.g. a blacklist?
			==Issues==
			*Once we have a code which seems reasonable to most people, how do we get domain resellers to adopt it? A number of tools suggest themselves, though I'm sure there are some I haven't thought of:
			**A banner which only conforming sites may use (much like banners provided by other trust-enhancing services)
			**A whitelist of resellers known to follow the spirit of the code
			**A blackist of resellers known ''not'' to follow the spirit of the code
	==Comments==		==Comments==

Woozle at 13:47, 3 July 2005

2005-07-03T13:47:47Z

New page

In the face of the rising tide of [[Domain Name Squatting]], which deprives all but the best-funded enterprises and individuals of the use of uncounted thousands of domain names, I hereby propose a code of ethics for reselling domain names. Comments and suggestions are welcome.

==Rules==
These seem like some pretty '''definite should-be rules''':
*The sale price should not be in excess of twice the amount invested in the domain's registration (i.e. the initial registration plus renewal fees).
*The seller may make efforts to ensure that the domain will be used as the home for a site that is substantially useful, rather than just being resold to the highest bidder.

Some '''maybe-should-be rules''':
*The sale price should not be in excess of the total amount invested in the domain's registration, or $100, whichever is less.

'''Notes''':
*In the early days, when [[WikiPedia:InterNIC|InterNIC]] was the only domain registrar, initial registration for all TLDs was $100 ($50/year, two years' initial registration required).
*Do we want a binding contract to enforce the stated use of the sold domain, so as to prevent reselling to the highest bidder? Or would it be better to find some other way to punish fraudulent purchasers, e.g. a blacklist?
==Comments==