Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Registrars Still Ignoring ICANN Rules

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the because-theycann dept.

The Internet 122

stry_cat writes "Over a year ago ICANN moved to clean up misbehaving registrars like GoDaddy. They released this scary sounding advisory. However, over a year later, problems remain. One company is now publicly complaining. Some of the biggest registrars are slammed for their actions. 'Register.com is one frustrating company. The ICANN policy clearly prohibits blocking a transfer of a domain name that has expired but not yet been deleted. Despite that, a customer trying to transfer a three-day-expired Register.com domain name told us last week that they refused to give him the necessary code to allow him to transfer — unless he pays them to renew it first. ... GoDaddy (and their reseller arm, Wild West Domains) have a different problem: They still block transfers for 60 days after a registrant's contact update, even after the ICANN update specifically prohibited doing so. They freely admit it, too. ... We see a similar problem with many transfers from Network Solutions.'"

cancel ×

122 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Internet Domains are under free market purview (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28787573)

Socialist attempts by ICANN to regulate and introduce market inefficiency in the domain-registration business are tantamount to introducing price controls.

Milton Friedman's free market efficiency theory proves that 100% market efficiency arises as a result of zero regulation, and our goal as denizens of the internet is to pursue maximal free market efficiency in order to further the interests of the public good.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787835)

The only reason ICANN is ignoring it is because GoDaddy and Network Solutions are one of the largest registrars and bring them lots of money. If it was some small registrar, you would be sure they would receive complaints from ICANN.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787923)

So... the offenders are Too Big To Fail?

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (2, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788035)

More like To Big To Piss Off

Network Solutions could be replaced (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789163)

I can't help but think that should Network Solutions disappear tomorrow, within a day, there would be a whole slew of companies willing to fill the void.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (4, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789233)

Piss them off anyway. GoDaddy is a bunch of leaches on the face of the Internet. Although I've never used GoDaddy for providing domain names (I'm very picky about who I trust with something that important), I tried using them for hosting and SSL certs recently. My GoDaddy experience was so bad that I actually wrote my first Slashdot journal entry about it. The gory details are chronicled here [slashdot.org] .

Godaddy is absolutely the most inept company I have ever dealt with; they make Fry's employees look knowledgeable, caring, and competent. They make Brooklyn camera shops seem above board. They sell services, then back out of the deal, screw up the refund afterwards, oversell their shared hosting servers, don't monitor what people do with them (allowing a few customers to cause multi-minute site outages), don't respond to customer complaints other than suggesting ways for you to pay them more money, require you to do things that defy the laws of physics in order for them to pay attention to your complaints... basically, they have single-handedly changed what the "S" stands for in ISP. They are to ISPs what the BOFH is to a proper IT manager.

I think it would be absolutely AWESOME if ICANN revoked their registrar status. It's not Chapter 7, but it would be a good start.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (1)

RenderSeven (938535) | more than 5 years ago | (#28790203)

Ive had the opposite experience with GoDaddy. Im not a fanboi but their pricing is good, setup and maintenance is insanely automated and still lets you do pretty advanced stuff like tweak MX records. For the few sites I host and a few dozen domains registered, I have a few thousand email accounts for free, with decent mailbox depth. Web, POP and SMPT all work OK-ish. Tech support answers with a person, they speak English, they listen before they talk, and know what Im talking about. Usually what is wrong gets fixed. Twice things that have required them to change their global policies, they changed them. OK they refused to, and then did it anyway.

They throttle POP and FTP which kinda scks. They refused a refund when I canceled a service once, but then gave in after only a few minutes of whining and begging. They filter email even after you turn filtering off, but not that much. All in all I gotta give them a B+ which is miles ahead of anyone else Ive used.

And they do Superbowl ads that piss off the network censors! C'mon! :-)

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (1)

RenderSeven (938535) | more than 5 years ago | (#28790217)

Oh, their 'Domains By Proxy' stuff is a leach on the internet. Yeah, gotta go with dgatwood on that.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (1)

stine2469 (1349335) | more than 5 years ago | (#28790919)

Excuse me, but BOFH ***IS*** a proper IT manager, anyone else is just a waste of salary.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#28790929)

They are to ISPs what the BOFH is to a proper IT manager.

From what you write, and what I've heard elsewhere, Godaddy acts the way it does because its employees just don't know any better. That's not being a BOFH, or even a PFY; it's just being a bunch of pointy-haired lusers.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 5 years ago | (#28791007)

Godaddy is absolutely the most inept company I have ever dealt with;

You've never dealt with Verizon or AT&T (SBC).

It's a dammed miracle anyone is ever able to get anything resembling service setup from either of them. I've heard stories from their own technicians recommending various ways of threatening them to get the most basic tasks accomplished.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788309)

The only reason ICANN is ignoring it is because GoDaddy and Network Solutions are one of the largest registrars and bring them lots of money. If it was some small registrar, you would be sure they would receive complaints from ICANN.

That doesn't make sense. All business goes to ICANN eventually. They could stop serving godaddy, and that same business would funnel through other companies or new startups.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (4, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788593)

GoDaddy's massive marketing apparatus generates more domain registrations than would otherwise exist. They convince people to buy domains they would not otherwise buy. The total number of registrations would likely go down without them, which would directly impact ICANN's revenue stream.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (5, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787863)

The entire purpose of the Domain Name System is, or was, to enforce structure in naming on the Internet. When it was under the purview of the old Network Solutions, under the guidance of the NSF, domains were well-organized, expensive enough to deter squatting, and TLDs actually meant something.

Under ICANN, the whole system has descended into chaos. It's laughable to see ICANN trying to exert any sort of control over the registrars now, when they've spent the last 10 years doing whatever the hell the registrars wanted them to. The whole system is broken, and ICANN has no effective authority to do anything about it. Some sort of regulation with teeth is badly needed, and ICANN is completely unequipped for that sort of thing. Their feeble attempts to assert authority this late in the game are laughable.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (1)

gnud (934243) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788183)

The most effective solution might be to purge all godaddy/registrar.com (and similar) IPs from the root servers. Methinks they would get their act together fairly quickly.

Of course, this would cause its own set of problems.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (4, Interesting)

Otto (17870) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788455)

The simpler and less damaging way is simply to revoke their new domain registrar capabilities. If the servers start rejecting their registration requests, then they'll clean up their act damn quick.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28789807)

But why would GoDaddy need to clean up their act? They're simply providing a great place for interracialchats.com to happen and for bigblackmeets.com to take place? It's not like s e ekmuslim.com isn't a great place to hang out. I met a beautiful cougar at sugarmommymeets.com! /the above is strictly bullshit. the people running godaddy should get assraped and cockpunched...

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789841)

Or more probably, call their lawyers damn quick.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (2, Funny)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789861)

One word can sum up ICANN's "control" of the system... RegisterFly.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28790923)

" The entire purpose of the Domain Name System is, or was, to enforce structure in naming on the Internet. "

Not. There are no documents anywhere that support this idea.

The purpose of the DNS is to be able to find computers on the network with easy to remember names, instead of IP addresses.

The (very) rough breakdown of top level domains in categories was arbitrary and capricious. Postel came up with com/net/org and evrybody hated it on the one mailing list on the net at the time "the message group" but he went ahead with it anyway. The Brits really objected as they'd been using uk.* hostnames, so he gave them .uk then found the iso-3166 list and made up a two letter domain for every country on it.

There never was an organizational plan or ontology using the DNS. The closest you'd find is draft-higgs from about 95/96 but that was shot down by the IAHC plan which was shot down by the USG to make ICANN.

I agree in general with the rest of your post.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28791347)

"When it was under the purview of the old Network Solutions, under the guidance of the NSF, domains were well-organized, expensive enough to deter squatting, and TLDs actually meant something. " You also pretty much needed to fax NetSol a drivers license in order to do anything to your domain. They took ages to respond to requests, because they were a monopoly, and didn't have any incentive to provide good service. The good old days had their own issues too.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (3, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787955)

You are more than welcome to create your own root domain, and do what you want. Nobody makes you use the structure controlled by ICANN.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (1)

not-my-real-name (193518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789395)

True. I set up a DNS on my network that it the root for the .lan domain. It's only used internally, but it rather handy.

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28792547)

Exactly! Nobody is forced to use the normal null root (yes, for anyone not 'in the know' DNS names actually have a . at the end, the actual ending is null)

It's just got a little bit of momentum behind it...

Re:Internet Domains are under free market purview (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789915)

So is it regulation that is destroying the world economy now? That is really a fresh take on insanity.

Rules can be ignored (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787587)

Laws, less so.

Re:Rules can be ignored (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28787637)

No Rules and Laws are the same. If no one enforce them no one will follow them.

Somebody should buy ICANN some backbone and a nice baseball bat.

Re:Rules can be ignored (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787891)

ICANN gets most (all?) of its money from the registrars it's supposed to be policing. There's an inherent conflict of interest there.

Re:Rules can be ignored (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28788431)

ICANN gets most (all?) of its money from the registrars it's supposed to be policing. There's an inherent conflict of interest there.

Not really. ICANN gets a small per-domain flat fee. More domains in total means more fees.

But who registers a domain name and what registrar they use has no effect on ICANN's fees.

Re:Rules can be ignored (5, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788545)

The fact that they get paid per domain of course is what gives them the motivation to dramatically increase the TLD space to the point where the whole concept of a TLD is completely meaningless. This also is a flawed part of the system.

The thing with the registrars, though, is that ICANN is effectively at the mercy of the registrars due to how the whole system is set up. ICANN can't just unilaterally block a major registrar, because then that registrar's customer's will be adrift, and of course the registrar will tell all of them that it's all ICANN's fault their domains don't work anymore. So, ICANN gets massive pressure from the registrar's customers (who are all losing millions per minute of course) to fix their domains, and ICANN has little choice but to comply. If they take a hard line, those customers may eventually move to another registrar, but they'll carry a lot of bitterness toward ICANN, and maybe they start lobbying their Congresspeople to pull ICANN's charter.

Add to all of this that the number of domains registered is heavily dependent on the amount of marketing these registrars do to try to convince people they need their own domain names, and it becomes apparent that ICANN is really completely beholden to the registrars, even though they technically have the ability to shut them all down.

Re:Rules can be ignored (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28790995)

" The fact that they get paid per domain of course is what gives them the motivation to dramatically increase the TLD space to the point where the whole concept of a TLD is completely meaningless. This also is a flawed part of the system."

They do get paid per domain, twenty cents or so (and why this isn't an illegal tax like the NSF/NSI "intellectual infrastructure fund" was - same thing - I don't know) but I would hardly say this is why ICANN wants to make new tlds.

They don't really. They've been around 11 years and were tasked by the us government in 1998 to set up a process to make new tlds. Whether they want to or not should be irrelevant.

But, large trademark and intellectual property interests have stalled this for a decade.

Wired Magazine ran an article recently "100 things your kids will never see" and #43 was "domains made from recognizable words", falling under the "all the good names are taken" battle cry which originated in 1997.

The registrars that appear to run icann do not. Nobody has any influence over ican, they make decisions, and deals in secret then ask for public comment and ignore it.

Look at what Karl Aurbach said:

I've been collecting Sims statements for years, and because I'm on the
Board of Directors of ICANN I have had the opportunity to see how he
purveys his ever-shifted message to those who could discharge him from his
job. I am reminded less of Othello and more of Iago - with the Internet
taking the role of Desdemona.
ICANN was the creation of a septic conception. ICANN was constructed in
secrecy. Favored groups, euphemistically and inaccurately called
"stakeholders", were selected. Secret deals were made. Comments from the
public were allowed - but they remained merely comments and they were
completely ignored - setting the precedent for the
submit-into-the-dumpster kind of public "forum" process that remains
standard practice in the ICANN of today.
How do I know this? Jon Postel asked Sims to speak to me. When Sims
finally did, he informed me that virtually every important decision had
been made and that changes were impossible because it would require too
many changes to the deals that had already been made. What those deals
were, and with whom, and with what quid-pro-quos, is something that has
never been revealed, although a few outlines have been seen.
ICANN loves to wave the word "consensus" - but it is consensus among a
chosen few.

Re:Rules can be ignored (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28792837)

OTOH what about ICANN redirecting all the inquiries for domains hosted by the offending party (for time of outage) to a neat informative page:

"This domain has been hosted on [a registrar] who is in violation of (list of offenses here). Due to repeated refusal to comply with the regulations the right to provide registered domains by [registrar] has been revoked until they compliance is implemented.

Disabled domain owners can can contact [registrar's support address] with inquires about when the compliance will be achieved. The domains will be available up to [n] hours after that date."

Re:Rules can be ignored (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 5 years ago | (#28792885)

ICANN can't just unilaterally block a major registrar, because then that registrar's customer's will be adrift, and of course the registrar will tell all of them that it's all ICANN's fault their domains don't work anymore.
wouldn't suspending new registrations from a registrar but leaving existing ones alone cause them a great deal of pain without pissing off domain owners too much?

Re:Rules can be ignored (2, Funny)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 5 years ago | (#28793165)

Shouldn't ICANN already have all the backbone it needs? Oh, wait...

Re:Rules can be ignored (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788023)

Laws, less so.

Unless you have good lawyers, lobbyists, or happen to be the person enforcing the law.

Re:Rules can be ignored (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788565)

Or you just have nobody bothering to actually enforce the laws, even when it is brought to the attention of the relevant authorities.

Re:Rules can be ignored (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28788193)

Actually, under rule 1222.3 subsection (g), a registrar can suspend the transfer of a domain to another registrar. To do so, the suspending registrar must notify the authority via email with the subject header "ICANN haz domane tranfurr blokking?" Naturally, the duration of the transfer delay depends on the cuteness of the enclosed lolcat.

Let me Google that for you: (0, Redundant)

mouseblue (1602125) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787615)

Re:Let me Google that for you: (1)

vil3nr0b (930195) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787717)

I like that by following the link of "Go Daddy Sucks", their google keyword ad is still on the right selling domains for 6.99. I wonder how many clicks they just got?

ICANN in Charge? (1)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787665)

I'm not that familiar with the process, but don't these registrars require accreditation from ICANN to operate? If so, then ICANN has full control here. Why don't they take disciplinary action against offenders?

Re:ICANN in Charge? (2, Insightful)

TypoNAM (695420) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787745)

Why don't they take disciplinary action against offenders?

Too much money involved. You don't want to upset those who are feeding you money now don't you?

Re:ICANN in Charge? (2, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788033)

You're assuming that other companies won't pick up the business left behind by a punished offender.
Given the amount of money involved in domain names, I'm guessing ICANN can safely take disciplinary actions without losing a dime in the process.

Re:ICANN in Charge? (2, Insightful)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788373)

Given the amount of money involved in domain names, I'm guessing ICANN can safely take disciplinary actions without losing a dime in the process.

Until, that is, the bit about registrars losing accreditation means customers without a techie background (or without a techie department to handle such matters) suddenly lose service to their domain names. They go to the registrar to see what's up and, instead of being given a technical/political description that they'll instantly tl;dr (note previous assertion of "customers without a techie background"), they're given the quick summary: "ICANN killed your websites"*.

Then out come the letters to [INSERT LOCAL HIGH-RANKING POLITICAL FIGURES HERE], which would rekindle the arguments to disband/decentralize/de-Americanify ICANN that keep coming up, and, well, long story short, "safely" isn't the adverb I'd use to describe their ability to take disciplinary actions.

*: If they're sleazy enough to do the sorts of things listed in this article, I can trivially assume them to be sleazy enough to do something like that out of spite. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

Re:ICANN in Charge? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28791157)

1. Yank the accreditation
2. Ban further registrations
3. Public notice of revocation
4. 120 day grace period to effect transfers
5. Yank the registrar

All ICANN needs to do is give due notice to their customers and give them time to transfer.

Re:ICANN in Charge? (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789821)

They'll try. Like lots of companies making web search engines, Iphone-killers, and other exciting tools, most of them are likely to suck even worse than the current provider: they're vulnerable to the same market forces and the same sorts of middle management, short-sighted fools who helped create GoDaddy at the expense of the rest of the world.

Who sets the rules? (4, Insightful)

brasselv (1471265) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787725)

This is something between scary and funny.

It's like the IRS complaining because too many people don't pay due taxes.

I'm not sure about the legal framework, but either ICANN has no way to enforce the rules (then it should refer to a different authority), or if they has such power, then go ahead and ban the guilty ones from providing the service.

ICANN is a pawn of the registrars (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787733)

Anybody who hasn't figured that out by now needs to pay closer attention.

Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketing (4, Insightful)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787777)

Those $0.99 domain registrations? Companies make their money up other places - like selling you addons, making it difficult to move, etc. Try using a smaller domain provider that has their system automated and doesn't pay people to come up with new ways to lock you in. Everything from requiring you to make other purchases after 12 months to only providing the domain registration with another pay service, that was free in the beginning. It's a shameless plug, but we do domain registration for our clients but it's more for convenience than anything.

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (4, Insightful)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787851)

It's a near perfect market, in the economic sense. The barrier to entry into the registration business is almost nil, it's all just some data processing. And as economics tells us, as a market approaches 'perfection', profit margins approach 0%. So it's not surprising that some registrars are resorting to shady business practices; the only people who can make money in the registration business are those who are willing to do a little lying and cheating.

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (2, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789175)

And as economics tells us, as a market approaches 'perfection', profit margins approach 0%.

Economic (supernormal) profit approaches zero.
Normal profits are the opportunity cost of your time/money/labor/etc.
Since they are considered a cost, normal profits are maintained even in a perfect market at equilibrium.
[/nitpick]

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789515)

Good nitpick. :-)

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789581)

It's a near perfect market, in the economic sense. The barrier to entry into the registration business is almost nil, it's all just some data processing. And as economics tells us, as a market approaches 'perfection', profit margins approach 0%. So it's not surprising that some registrars are resorting to shady business practices; the only people who can make money in the registration business are those who are willing to do a little lying and cheating.

Actually, you are illustrating that it quite far from a "perfect market". A perfect market requires perfect information (and, particularly, that the perceived utility that purchasers have when making purchase decisions perfectly aligns with the experienced utility they derive from purchases.)

In a perfect market, sellers could not resort to deception (either through dishonesty or simple omission) to manipulate purchase decisions.

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (2, Informative)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788137)

I tried to order a domain from GoDaddy once, after clicking through six pages of crap addons at checkout I decided the marginal savings wasn't worth it and moved to NameCheap.

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (3, Informative)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788695)

The cheapest legit Registrars I've found were just over $10. The ones cheaper than that don't offer any privacy.

I'd never use a registrar like GoDaddy. Their privacy is totally fake - anyone can phone in and get your info.

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28789749)

The cheapest legit Registrars I've found were just over $10. The ones cheaper than that don't offer any privacy.

I'd never use a registrar like GoDaddy. Their privacy is totally fake - anyone can phone in and get your info.

Not everyone is looking for domain name privacy. I think it's sketchy to order online from a company that hides their domain name registration. I think it's an indicator of legitimacy when a business lists their correct name, address & contact info on a domain name registration.

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789785)

Not everyone is looking for domain name privacy. I think it's sketchy to order online from a company that hides their domain name registration. I think it's an indicator of legitimacy when a business lists their correct name, address & contact info on a domain name registration.

Yes, a business. Some of us are people.

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (1)

aj50 (789101) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789883)

To see whether that's important to you, just ask the following question:

Do I want people looking at my site to be able to contact me directly.

Also consider the two following situations:
1) Your website has been hacked and is showing a fake IRS "register your details to receive your tax rebate" form. Do you want someone to be able to tell you this, or do you want them to ask your hoster/registrar to pull your site?
2) Your domain expires soon, competing registrars want to advertise to you to move your domain to them.

Here in the UK, private individuals can specifically opt-out of including their personal information in the WHOIS record and that's available through nominet, no matter who your registrar is.

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 5 years ago | (#28790019)

1) Your website has been hacked and is showing a fake IRS "register your details to receive your tax rebate" form. Do you want someone to be able to tell you this, or do you want them to ask your hoster/registrar to pull your site?

Do you want someone to visit your home at night, armed and drunk, to demand that you give them the refund you promised?

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28792325)

IRS
Â
UK
Â

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 5 years ago | (#28792999)

Do I want people looking at my site to be able to contact me directly.
Yes at an email address that I check when i've got time, not at my low traffic important email address and not by phone or in person.

1) Your website has been hacked and is showing a fake IRS "register your details to receive your tax rebate" form. Do you want someone to be able to tell you this
Yes

2) Your domain expires soon, competing registrars want to advertise to you to move your domain to them.
Hell no, i'm happy enough with the registrars I use at the moment and i'm not going to trust someone who contacts me in that manner anyway.

Here in the UK, private individuals can specifically opt-out of including their personal information in the WHOIS record and that's available through nominet, no matter who your registrar is.
I think that only applies to uk domains though, since the sites i'm involved with aren't really country specific and i've had the names for ages anyway i'm kinda stuck with .com/.org/.net .

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28790251)

I am curious about your comment and godaddy's privacy. I was under impression there was no privacy in general to domains but goaddy would would charge you money so that the official information is kept by them and law enforcement would have to make a request to get that information. This is a valid question I am curious are you saying that anyone can get your info besides law enforcement even if you pay for their premium service I guess you would call it?

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (1)

xant (99438) | more than 5 years ago | (#28790035)

"Make their money up"? You mean that onerous cost of using CPU cycles and a few bytes of bandwidth to automatically process my registration? The marginal cost of a new domain is like 0.000003 dollars.

Re:Try this: Don't get suckered in my the marketin (1)

u235meltdown (940099) | more than 5 years ago | (#28792107)

Is that 0.0003 U.S. cents or 0.000003 Verizon cents?

Consequences (5, Interesting)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787779)

ICANN needs to figure out an enforcement policy. Perhaps it should order the root servers to stop accepting new registrations from registrars not following the rules.

Re:Consequences (2, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788213)

ICANN needs to figure out an enforcement policy. Perhaps it should order the root servers to stop accepting new registrations from registrars not following the rules.

But it should announce that some time before, so that innocent people registering domains know to avoid those registrars.

Re:Consequences (2, Insightful)

Eil (82413) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788403)

Good luck with that, the registrars pretty much run ICANN.

Re:Consequences (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28791071)

" ICANN needs to figure out an enforcement policy. Perhaps it should order the root servers to stop accepting new registrations from registrars not following the rules" "

Nomenclatural nit: root servers contain lists of tld servers, the servers that serve up com/net/org/de/uk etc.

You mean "tld servers" not "root servers".

But, the real way they do this is send a letter to the registrar telling them to knock it off. If they don't they can pull their accreditation and the registrar is no longer a registrar.

There is a contracts enforcement officer at ICANN. You can see him in the video on the botto mof this page: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/eyestar/icann/inside/ [vrx.net]

registrars (0, Troll)

Mortgage (1603665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787853)

What a bunch of monkeys, never fair for the little guy

Perhaps ICANN needs the force of law. (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28787989)

The whole point of the internet is that its something the private sector can sort out... but, if Godaddy and ICANN cannot sort out their differences, and with ICANN being the authority the Gov't put in charge, then, the Congress needs to take this matter up. If Godaddy wants to thumb its nose at regulatory bodies, let them do it at least before ones that can suspend their license to operate and levy fines.

Re:Perhaps ICANN needs the force of law. (5, Insightful)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788063)

but, if Godaddy and ICANN cannot sort out their differences, and with ICANN being the authority the Gov't put in charge, then, the Congress needs to take this matter up

Do you really want congress deciding who gets what web page?

Re:Perhaps ICANN needs the force of law. (1)

Fyzzle (1603701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788389)

but, if Godaddy and ICANN cannot sort out their differences, and with ICANN being the authority the Gov't put in charge, then, the Congress needs to take this matter up

Do you really want congress deciding who gets what web page?

0.1% - Pat Buchanan

The ballot was confusing.

Re:Perhaps ICANN needs the force of law. (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788591)

and more importantly, what happens if congress actually does something? Will other nations accept it or create their own "internet"?

Re:Perhaps ICANN needs the force of law. (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789557)

Well, in face of who would decide it otherwise: HELL YES!

At least in theory, we could replace the government. But replacing any company? Never!

Re:Perhaps ICANN needs the force of law. (1)

Glendale2x (210533) | more than 5 years ago | (#28791595)

ICANN has the power to pull accreditation. The problem is that they won't do it for the big guys. You'd better believe they would for a small company, though.

Eu will screw them soon (3, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788123)

wait until eu commissions take the matter into their hands when there are enough complaints. they brought microsoft onto the line about browsers. they can straighten up these shit too. jurisdiction issues ? what's wto good for ? i would be happy to see godaddy taught some manners.

What can ICANN do? (1)

greymond (539980) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788225)

What can ICANN actually do to enforce any rules they put into place? From reading the initial announcement it just sounds like the corporate idiots at my work who spout out "That's a violation of our company standards!!!" at our sales teams then do nothing because the sales guys are the ones who pay their salaries.

Ignoring The Elephant In the Room (4, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788231)

The most profitable moves that registrars make in violation of ICANN rules are the ones that are almost never punished. Consider all the registrations that are issued with incomplete or outright bogus registration data, and how little ICANN has done about the registrars who are repeat offenders of that.

There is a reason why your favorite evil spamming domain has bad registration data, and there is a reason why it will stay that way.

Re:Ignoring The Elephant In the Room (2, Insightful)

Coffee Warlord (266564) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788305)

And on the flipside, that evil spamming domain is pulling contact information from people who *do* have legit info in the fields. Is it any wonder why people don't want real data in their whois record?

Re:Ignoring The Elephant In the Room (1)

Quirkz (1206400) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788647)

No kidding. I don't see why my owning a domain means my contact information needs to be public to the world. Nor do I see why I should pay a $10 ransom to have that data made private.

Re:Ignoring The Elephant In the Room (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789197)

that evil spamming domain is pulling contact information from people who *do* have legit info in the fields

For one, I doubt that the spammers are really pulling much information from WHOIS records. Sure, they do use it, I don't see any reason to expect that they do not. However I suspect they get better returns on their time by using google to crawl through forum posts and other such things that tend to have email addresses in them.

That said, I am sympathetic towards people who want to protect their privacy from publicly accessible WHOIS records and people who might use that information for nefarious purposes. I do believe there is a reasonable compromise that can be made between for-profit web domains (who IMHO should be obliged to have legitimate contact information in their records) and non-profit or hobby domains (who generally I would say should be eligible for obfuscation services).

Re:Ignoring The Elephant In the Room (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#28792295)

However I suspect they get better returns on their time by using google to crawl through forum posts and other such things that tend to have email addresses in them.

It's not their time, so they don't have to care what the returns are. Setting a botnet to pull e-mail addresses out of WHOIS doesn't cost anything except the price of renting a botnet from the Russian mafia, but they can probably find a way to get it for free.

I do believe there is a reasonable compromise that can be made between for-profit web domains (who IMHO should be obliged to have legitimate contact information in their records) and non-profit or hobby domains (who generally I would say should be eligible for obfuscation services).

And which of these two categories would you put spammers in?

Re:Ignoring The Elephant In the Room (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#28793605)

It's not their time, so they don't have to care what the returns are.

True, they don't exactly have someone at a keyboard typing in 'whois aaaaaa.com' all the way through 'whois zzzzzz.com' and dumping the results somewhere. However I don't think it is reasonable to assume the spammers to be idiots, either. They are, after all, in the business of spamming to make money so they will choose the action that is most profitable.

Setting a botnet to pull e-mail addresses out of WHOIS doesn't cost anything except the price of renting a botnet from the Russian mafia, but they can probably find a way to get it for free.

Probably true as well.

However, if we assume that the spammers are fairly intelligent people - rather than assuming they are idiots - we could come to the conclusion that they know that the email addresses in WHOIS records are likely to be amongst the more intelligent people on the internet. Hence the spammers would realize that these people who have email addresses in WHOIS records are not amongst the people most likely to buy a spamvertised product.

I do believe there is a reasonable compromise that can be made between for-profit web domains (who IMHO should be obliged to have legitimate contact information in their records) and non-profit or hobby domains (who generally I would say should be eligible for obfuscation services).

And which of these two categories would you put spammers in?

Spammers are, undoubtedly, trying to make money. They don't send out spam just to piss you off; they send it out because someone is paying them to do it.

Though at this point I should make an important distinction that I may not have been adequately clear on earlier. There is an important difference between spamming domains and spamvertised domains.

I would argue that the former is more nebulously defined, and not necessarily worth putting great effort into finding the identity of. The latter, however, should be easy to find the identity of via a WHOIS search. Unfortunately, there are several registrars who are in cahoots with the spammers themselves and sell domains to spammers with intentionally bogus records. And by the time a complaint is logged with ICANN over the bogus records at the registrar, the domain has already been shut down in some other way.

Although after that happens, nothing is done about the registrar that intentionally and knowingly violated the accreditation terms that they agreed to with ICANN. Indeed, even though a single domain was just shut down, the same registrar likely has several dozen more that they sold to the same spammer (or spamvertising company as it may be) that will take months or years more to be all shut down. And all of those domains have bogus registration data as well.

So in the end, the registrars will continue to ignore the rules, and nothing will be done. And this game will be even worse when ICANN starts selling gTLDs; but that is for another conversation.

So what's a good one? (1)

KikassAssassin (318149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788769)

Here's my question: This article lists some of the domain registrars that are performing shady practices, but what about a list of registrars that are playing by the rules and won't try to screw you over in some way? Or is the entire system such a mess now that there are no good ones left?

Re:So what's a good one? (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28791679)

Try http://www.dynadot.com/ [dynadot.com] and verisign seem to be ok. I dunno about the rest.

Block transfers after a registrant update (1)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788927)

They still block transfers for 60 days after a registrant's contact update,

I *want* them to do that for my domain names. Let's face it: passwords get hacked. Even yours. If the the registrar where *YOU* am the paying customer still holds the domain name, that damage can be promptly undone. Good luck getting [random non-English registrar] to undo a stolen name without going through months and thousands of dollars with the UDRP.

In prohibiting this behavior, ICANN expresses a confidence in the system security which is unwarranted by the operational reality.

The upside to this. (2, Interesting)

ACMENEWSLLC (940904) | more than 5 years ago | (#28788979)

If you are registered with a reputable registrar...

Say your registration for yourdomain.com expires and you've forgot about it because you were out on vacation for the last month and didn't see the e-mails.

With Network Solutions, they will keep that expired domain around for me to renew, even after it expires. So I don't loose it to a cyber squatter.

I've seen this with domains I've deliberately let go.

If they aren't allowed to do this, then I'm screwed if I forget to renew one of my domains.

I'm with the registrars on this one. It is a nice security feature.

Re:The upside to this. (1)

stuckinphp (1598797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28790389)

Godady bill my CC on a regular and reoccurring basis 'forgetting' to re-register your domain should never happen, any other reason for keeping it around?

Re:The upside to this. (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28791633)

"With Network Solutions, they will keep that expired domain around for me to renew, even after it expires. So I don't loose it to a cyber squatter. I've seen this with domains I've deliberately let go. If they aren't allowed to do this, then I'm screwed if I forget to renew one of my domains. I'm with the registrars on this one. It is a nice security feature."

What I find interesting is the original article was about a specific not so great registrar, which quickly morphed into an all out frontal attack on godaddy seemingly because of the bredth of dismay, with a twinge of the very predictable "oh and screw verisign too" for nothing other than a suspicion.

But I'll second the above, I feel like I have a fighting chance with NSI.

I still haven't got used to calling them verisign and I probably wont.

FTC disclaimer v1.0: just a happy customer.

Having said that, I still think this whole registrar registry split has been more trouble that it's worth if you were to actually measure it. All it's done is prove you can get worse service for less money. Frankly I could have guessed that.

Re:The upside to this. (1)

icsx (1107185) | more than 5 years ago | (#28793617)

Your domain is your responsibility, just like your password to any site you visit to or any bill you wish to pay. If you do not renew your domain in time, it's your own loss. If the domain really is important to you, this would never happen.

It's been years that godaddy is like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28789187)

Nodaddy [nodaddy.com]

Just use gandi.net (0)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#28789323)

Gandi.net: the ultimate No-Bullshit registrar, in my experience.

Godaddy's bullshit only happens to Godaddy customers. And Godaddy customers are people who don't know how to use Google to find out who sucks and who doesn't. I'm not saying what Godaddy does is right, but it's like using Windows: if you look before you leap, you'll quickly realize how dumb leaping will be.

Re:Just use gandi.net (1)

Skuto (171945) | more than 5 years ago | (#28792031)

Seconded. Another 100% satisfied gandi.net customer here.

What registrar to use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28789919)

What's a good registrar to use? If providers like Godaddy are part of the problem.

Shame on ICANN (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28790239)

Ok, registrars are flagrantly violating ICANN rules and are thus probably in breach of their registrar contracts.

Why the hell is ICANN not revoking the shit out of them?

Re:Shame on ICANN (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28791661)

Na, if you really want shame on ICANN it's for that bilderberg-clinton-bildt-dyson connection. If the tinfoil crew get hold of this they'll get anonymous to do something awful and it will make a big miss. Even the appearance of these sorts of things shouldn't exist.

And if you're going to have a regulatory clusterfuck like ICANN manage a franchise like .com and since it seems to fit the definition of a franchise under the FTC, have them regulate it. They sorta have a legal obligation to, and they don't need a burn rate of $250K a day to do it.

hmmm... (2, Interesting)

kojikeneda (1603861) | more than 5 years ago | (#28791369)

hmmm.. sounds like someone didn't read their own links. When you change the registrant at Godaddy it asks you to confirm that you won't be able to transfer the domain name.As stated in the ICANN policy " A registrantâ(TM)s objection to transfer is not valid unless it is obtained voluntarily.". No one makes you change the registrant prior to transferring the domain name. Simply change it after you make the transfer.... duh.

Be serious! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28791443)

So the ICANN must be serious in their business and suspend GoDaddy and Register's accounts.

Because there is no consequence at all is why those thieves do whatever they want with our domains.

I use ThePlanet.com to register my domains and never had a single problem.

got screwed by register.com and paypal (2, Interesting)

meisdug (1603907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28791895)

I got an ad in the snail mail from register.com offering a free domain registration, no further commitment. However, you need to provide a credit card so they could continue billing after the first year....at a rate of about $50 per year. I had a debit card about to expire in a couple months, so I thought, great, I'll take this free domain name, transfer it somewhere cheaper within the first year, and just let nature take it's course with register.com. I had little trouble getting the authorization code to transfer, just some extended hold time on the phone. But, what really got me, was after the first year when they billed my card, my expired card, and it went through. My card was a debit card from Paypal. I contacted them and they refused to correct that charge to my expired card saying it was a recurring charge and basically that expiration dates don't matter. I was pissed.

No enforcement (2, Insightful)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 5 years ago | (#28792907)

Rules and Laws without Enforcement are not worth the paper they're written on.

No enforcement^2 -- ICANN must grow a pair (1)

FreakyGreenLeaky (1536953) | more than 5 years ago | (#28793241)

Geez, for a while there I thought I was the only one having this problem. I have tried (and failed) to transfer domains away from Network Solutions. I've given up and stayed with NS (for those domains registered with them in the first place) because I just don't have the time nor energy to fight with them any more.

Registrars like NS have people by the balls because they know there is no enforcement of the rules.

Nothing will change until ICANN grows a pair.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>