Am I getting cynical? Seems like no businesses are going to use this recommended price.
It wasn't until college that I had enough available resources to buy a domain, and at the time I went ahead and bought 5 years. I probably missed out on 3 or 4 years of my life when I had virtually unlimited time to work on things like programming. Had $1 domains existed in 1997, I'd probably have ended up as a PHP/Perl guy, and gone on an entirely different life route.
Nowadays I have six or seven domains, two for public facing stuff, and the rest are for a rotating cast of personal projects where subdomains don't make a lot of sense. But my life wasn't always like this where I can afford multiple vanity domains. For big chunks of the world, $10/year is a significant startup cost when AWS and GCP have free tiers.
“Following the acquisition by SAIC, the NSF gave Network Solutions authority to charge for domain name registrations. Network Solutions imposed a charge of $100 for two years registration. 30% of this revenue went to the NSF to create an "Internet Intellectual Infrastructure Fund." In 1997, a lawsuit was filed charging Network Solutions with antitrust violations with regard to domain names. The 30% of the registration fee that went to the NSF was ruled by a court to be an illegal tax. This led to a reduction in the domain name registration fee to $70 (for two years).”
These days there are so many free DynDNS services out there that I don't know if a $1 domain on some weird TLD is that enticing.
1. This is basically just a strategy for XYZ to generate tons of new revenue from otherwise junk domains ($0.99 * 1.11B names = $1,098,900,000)
2. We don't need to charge for domain names to allow a wider array of applications to communicate using personalized global addressing.
E-mail is the standard example: throwaway984393@mailprovider.com does not cost me anything at all, but it's personalized. Mail provider has to pay for a domain, but nobody else needs to. This kind of free personalized addressing is a design choice. In fact, you don't even need to use DNS at all, as many peer-to-peer networks (Bitcoin, IPFS, BitTorrent/Gnutella/Napster, YaCy, Usenet, etc) have shown.
A 3rd potential problem with this proposal is that if it were expanded to other TLDs, it may generate significantly more traffic for the DNS root.
Getting a domain is not prohibitively expensive if you have low standards for the url (which presumably you do if "93736474.xyz" works)
So the inevitable result is that a large number of applications using these will be so low effort they couldn't get a much better domain for barely more money, and that will probably end up being a mix of spam, malicious applications, and questionable content.
And the end result is everyone blocking traffic from .xyz. Just like someurl@extracheaphosting.com is.
finally every famous fake phone number could have a domain https://www.steveharveyfm.com/content/2017-05-30-12-songs-wi...
Does that not defeat the purpose?
I mean an IP address is numbers too. Who point of url names is to make it more human readable
If you want to assign IoT devices unique domain names, don't start with someone else's TLD. Provision your own and assign based on a database.
Imagine ".device" as a TLD, where every domain maps to a device. You could sell them at $0.01/domain and let the registration last forever.
Provision entire blocks of them, even.
