Parking pages or any other use that intends to work around the restriction can be deemed illegitimate use.
My personal domain doesn't even have an A record in the DNS, only an MX record because use it for all my email. By your definition that would be an "illegitimate use" and I should lose my domain...
If we were to apply this, as with any poorly thought-out rule, only legitimate users will be affected. Anyone proposing an "easy" solution to a complex problem should think twice before speaking.
That's not going to work.
(There is nothing inherently wrong with squatting)
Squatting domain names is the same deal.
> $7.85 of your registration or renewal payment goes to Verisign. The actual cost to Verisign to provide the expensive infrastructure and the management of the registry has been estimated at between $2.50 to $2.90 per domain name per year. Other registries have said they can offer the same services for cheaper.
I’m wondering why the ICANN wouldn’t simply go to another company that would provide them the same service at that same rate. Is Verisign innovating somehow?
I'm not a fan of government-style lowest-bidder procurement for something as critical as .com. Among other things, I assume this involves operating the .com DNS servers, and it seems like the current operators are probably uniquely positioned to understand what makes that different from operating e.g. .party or .racing, what weird load patterns it sees, maybe even how much to pay the folks who know the hard parts to keep doing this, etc. Obviously it would be better for the world if Verisign were transparent about their operations and it could be moved, but for potentially $5/domain name/year, forcing the change doesn't seem valuable. (If it were $50, sure, it'd be worth thinking about.)
Do also consider the cost of change. I don't know if it's worth it, and it might be worth it just for keeping the 'market' competitive, but this is another factor.
We're talking about something which has become a central piece of the modern internet largely by being perceived as a well governed non-profit organization.
Unreasonable price-hikes undermines that position and seems like a clear violation of the natural monopoly they have obtained through good will so far.
Maybe the internet just needs to learn a lesson or two, once again, about the problems with centralization.
If you don’t support centralized authority over the DNS root, you can vote with your computer for a new DNS root controlled by the commons [1].
>=7 - $10
6 - $100
5 - $1000
4 - $10,000
<=3 - $100,000Actually what would be even better is if browsers started supporting ENS or some similar competing name system
Handshake[1] is another such similar competing name system that specifically is aimed at taking down ICANN's monopoly - which they've abused time and time again.
Not that it isn't worth a shot, but I have become highly cynical of the entire organisation.