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!

VeriSign/NSI Proposes Domain Name Wait Listing Service

chrisd posted more than 12 years ago | from the step-one-underpants-step-three-profit dept.

The Internet 164

David Harris writes: "Newsbytes and the folks over at DotcomScoop.com have good stories about VeriSign's proposal to start a "Wait Listing Service" (WLS) that would allow consumers to buy domain names before they expire. As with anything that has to do with VeriSign/Network Solutions the "WLS" ain't all it cracked up to be and there is opposition from the ICANN community. I'm not sure I like the idea of auctioning off domains before they expire either." CD: To quote Don Marti: "DNS is a consensus reality."

cancel ×

164 comments

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

Frothy (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835328)

PISSS!!!

I hate to wait!

Nth Post! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835329)

Nth Post!

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835332)

kill all monsters

first post! (-1, Offtopic)

timanderson (532194) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835333)

First post! didn't even read the article yet! ace...

Sounds like another way for Verisign to cash in (1)

patrick687 (260027) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835345)

This is strictly IMO, but it sounds like this is just another way for verisign to extort money from its customers... Notice how most other parties involved are against it? It probably will never pass or be an actual business plan, althouh Verisign would definitely make some cash off of this if it were to go through

Re:Sounds like another way for Verisign to cash in (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835418)

stop whinning! don't like capitalism? then why don't you move to sandniggerland, fucking commies!

Re:Sounds like another way for Verisign to cash in (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835823)

Exactly.. MONEY MONEY MONEY! I've had my eye on a domain name that expired back on April 15 2001. It has YET to be removed from their database and when I inquire, NSI suggests I sign-up for this new "first come first serve" registration queue.
It was explained to me that for ONLY $45 (USD) you'd be placed in a queue to purchase the domain upon availability, through a third party company. Let me guess... the domain I'm looking at hasn't been removed in 10 months... but I bet if I pay this $45 to get in line, it will mysteriously be available?

don't mod this down, you could become a statistic! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835346)

I'm a statistician for a large corporation. I deal a lot with statistics in the computer world, and we are contracted often by ad agencies for information in regards to the preferences of computer users. One assignment was dealing with the operating systems and their user's lifestyle and preferences. The results we came up with were interesting and shocking. Here are some memorable tidbits.

Windows users

87% of Windows users are employed (3% on welfare)

40% hold a university level degree

43% in a heterosexual relationship

5% are in a homosexual relationship

3% have a serious mental disorder

Linux users

32% of linux users are employed (15% are on welfare)

35% hold a university degree

4% are in a heterosexual relationship

37% are in a homosexual relationship

56% have a serious mental disorder

Thus we have concluded that effective ads related to linux should try and target the mentally disturbed, homosexuals, and the unemployed.

Advert time (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835410)

LINUX - For when you know you're the best, even when you're lying around in the gutter outside the welfare office, wanking for coins.

Re:don't mod this down, you could become a statist (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835431)

why was this modded down 2 times? I posted it at 0

fucking crooked moderation system!

It's your phrasing (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835488)

You have to say "I know I'll get modded down for this but..."

This way, you won't get modded down. In fact, you stand a fair chance of getting modded up.

At least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835347)

...you have to give them credit for finding yet one more way to milk money from a dying cow.

They're afraid... (-1, Redundant)

8Complex (10701) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835350)

I mean really... noone wants NEWS.com, WEATHER.com, TRAVEL.com. As a matter of fact, it's a good thing they have them sold now...

what's the point? (1)

TheQuantumShift (175338) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835351)

All the good million dollar generating through corporate extortion domains are taken...

They do not even handle it well AFTER expiration (5, Interesting)

mAsterdam (103457) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835355)

..."Wait Listing Service" (WLS) that would allow consumers to buy domain names before they expire. As with anything that has to do with VeriSign/Network Solutions the "WLS" ain't all it cracked up to be and there is opposition from the ICANN community. I'm not sure I like the idea of auctioning off domains before they expire either.
A good friend of mine is interested in using a name which has expired for allmost a year now. The previous owner has no interest anymore.
Verisign tells my friend he should ask the previous owner to use the transfer documents to transfer the domain to my friend. However, the previous owner does noet want to put any effort at all into it. "I am just not interested as to what happens to the name. That is why I let it expire. If you get it -ok with me. If not - ok with me." Now my friend is stuck. One wonders how they will handle names that did not even expire yet.

Re:They do not even handle it well AFTER expiratio (3, Interesting)

Yakman (22964) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835385)

I never understood this either. I was looking for a potential name for an idea I had (This must be a sign of the "New Economy": Working out the name of your business based on whether the domain name for it is available :) ). Anyway, one of the names I checked had expired 2-Feb-2000 (this was only a week ago I was checking), and yet all the details were still there in WHOIS and the name still resolves to an IP using DNS. In fact, the last updated date was 13-Nov-2001, about a year and half after expiry!

So it's expired but the owner can still use it because it still resolves? What's up with that? And especially if you're saying the owner needs to transfer it to you even if it's expired, seems to imply that they can keep the expired domain as long as they want.

This is a computerised system, it should be that as soon as it hits the expiry date (maybe +1 week at the most incase there is a delay in payment) the domain is deregistered and removed from whois, and available free for all again.

End Rant. :)

Re:They do not even handle it well AFTER expiratio (1)

mAsterdam (103457) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835428)

So it's expired but the owner can still use it because it still resolves? What's up with that? And especially if you're saying the owner needs to transfer it to you even if it's expired, seems to imply that they can keep the expired domain as long as they want.

This is a computerised system, it should be that as soon as it hits the expiry date (maybe +1 week at the most incase there is a delay in payment) the domain is deregistered and removed from whois, and available free for all again.

Ok. So it happened to you, it happenend to my friend. My guess is there are a lot more people, but (because of the nature of the problem) rather dispersed.

Now what can they do? Did V violate a rule one can legally enforce? It is a gray area. Now the 10E6 Euro question is: what are the rules with regard to names BEFORE expiriation?

Nice business ;-(

Re:They do not even handle it well AFTER expiratio (1)

sh00z (206503) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835868)

This is a computerised system, it should be that as soon as it hits the expiry date (maybe +1 week at the most incase there is a delay in payment) the domain is deregistered and removed from whois, and available free for all again.
Exactly. Isn't this how Microsoft lost control of hotmail.com within 24 hours of the name's expiration [cnet.com] back in 1999? Or maybe that's the reason the system's been changed.

Re:They do not even handle it well AFTER expiratio (5, Informative)

httptech (5553) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835420)

Verisign tells my friend he should ask the previous owner to use the transfer documents to transfer the domain to my friend

That's funny, considering that Verisign won't let you transfer domains after they expire. I suspect if the original owner tried to, they would tell him he needs to renew with them first, so they can get an extra $70 for doing nothing. They tried to do it to me, but I said fsck that. Now my previous domain is owned by a porn site operator who re-registered it with another registrar before I could. That's where the domain your friend wants will probably end up too.

Re:They do not even handle it well AFTER expiratio (1)

mAsterdam (103457) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835439)

Hm.. I'ld mod your response up for having information, but I can't. Thanks anyway for unveiling this one.

Re:They do not even handle it well AFTER expiratio (3, Insightful)

ethereal (13958) | more than 12 years ago | (#2836087)

Bingo. It's ridiculous that they are setting this up to handle existing names that haven't expired yet, when there are names which have already been expired for one or two years which cannot be claimed due to various registrars' screwed-up policies.

The whole name registration racket is in dire need of either total decentralization (to empower the customer) or else some real regulation to make sure that all registrars are playing by the same rules. Since I'm not too confident in ICANN's regulation so far, decentralization sounds like the way to go.

Heck, I'd love to see the Commerce Department (or an international disinterested party (you know, like ICANN was supposed to be?)) take back over the actual database, and provide the same access to all registrars alike. As it is now, any one of NSI's bad business ideas are basically unstoppable without a significant court battle.

Re:They do not even handle it well AFTER expiratio (2)

HiThere (15173) | more than 12 years ago | (#2836247)

Decentralization. Regulation always ends up with the business being regulated controlling the regulators. (At least I don't know of any exceptions.)
.

Re:They do not even handle it well AFTER expiratio (2)

trenton (53581) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835424)

They'll use a Sales Contract. They're binding, ya know.

Re:They do not even handle it well AFTER expiratio (2, Insightful)

mAsterdam (103457) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835459)

They'll use a Sales Contract. They're binding, ya know.

Wanna buy a piece of land on Ganymed?
Don't think that is impossible.

So the Q: what can they really put in their contract? What do V really deliver?

Re:They do not even handle it well AFTER expiratio (2)

m_evanchik (398143) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835478)

I've been looking at a few domain names held by network solutions for almost three months now. They expired three months ago and are still not available.

Oddly enough, the owner of the *expired* name is willing to sell it. Net. Sol. is the most expensive registrar out there, with the worst agreement contract. The system is seriously broke. The only solution I can think of is government action, but I can't see the current Bush administration doing anything. I hold out some hope that maybe some technocrats in Europe will pick up and run with this travesty.

Re:They do not even handle it well AFTER expiratio (3, Interesting)

Norny (9940) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835621)

You think 3 months is bad... I'm looking at two domain names. One expired Aug 30, 2001. The other expired Jan 10, 2001, over a year now. I tried talking to a rep in their little live java chat and to someone on the phone. All they tell me is the domains are on registrar hold, but I know that already. When I ask when they'll be released or why it's taking so long, they tell me they both can't and won't tell me why, not even when I'm holding credit card in hand.

I've noticed that some domains I had with register.com that I let expire were gone in a couple days from WHOIS, yet ones registered by netsol continue to linger. I'm not the least bit curious why netsol is the largest holder of domains... they don't ever remove them!

Re:They do not even handle it well AFTER expiratio (3, Insightful)

Tiroth (95112) | more than 12 years ago | (#2836005)

A domain I wanted had been expired for about 8 months. I wrote to NetSol about 3 times, got a single reply that said that no information was available since I was not the registering party...DUH, the name was EXPIRED. There wasn't a re

The day after I sent my third email the WHOIS information became unavailable, but I still couldn't register the name. The day after that a bulk domain reseller showed up in the WHOIS.

Needless to say, I was pissed.

Re:They do not even handle it well AFTER expiratio (1)

ColdGrits (204506) | more than 12 years ago | (#2836101)

Doesn't match with my experience.

I accidentally let a domain expire (miscalculated by 2 weeks).

Within 1 week of it expiring, some scumbag pr0nmeister had reg'd the domain and was using it to peddle his wares (whilst offering the domain for sale for a ridiculous price)...

Is NSI playing fair?? (2, Interesting)

lamj (153635) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835359)

Right now, a lot of people are already complaining about the expired domains with NSI being released at an un-timely fashion. Domains are released anywhere from 9 to 15 weeks and without consistency. Think about the frustration for domain to be released while knowing that it has already expired....

Would this be a way for them to "selectively" release expired domain earlier?

Re:Is NSI playing fair?? (1)

drsoran (979) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835718)

NSI has NEVER played fair and they've always had the most horrible service of *any* company I've ever dealt with. If this company had to rely on staying in business by marketing a product that wasn't a granted monopoly they would have been out of business 10 years ago! Even now with an "open" registrar system NSI still controls the database! ICANN was smoking crack when they renewed NSI's contract yet again. Why not give it to another company or (better yet) an independent non-profit group to maintain?

New footnote: (3, Funny)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835360)

New footnote at the bottom of your city's homepage:

Be ready for hot teens in six months at www.CITYNAME.gov!!!

Great idea! Sounds like another way to get money out of domain name holders.

Auctioning? (3, Interesting)

astrosmurf (546405) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835368)

If you are auctioning off the names, what is stopping the looser of such an auction from contacting the holder of an address, buy it directly and renew it, paying a nominal fee?

The article itself does not mention auctions, maybe the poster is jumping to conclutions. This scheme seems to involve not notifying the holders of a domain that they controll something valuable.

Out of All Curiousity... Buy MSFT.com? (3, Funny)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835369)

I'm really not sure how many active users Slashdot has, but if we all donated a few bucks, think we could bid for some big domain names?

I think it'd be interesting to see a bid from Slashdot on Microsoft.com, in 10 years it could be an open source page; directing users to the new Microsoft Home: www.geocities.com/microsoft.

We could also buy some other big ones, including AOL or Time. Just think of the amazing site traffic you'd get on whitehouse.gov, assuming Bush neglected everything important (like he always does) and forgot to tell someone to renew his Verisign lease.

Or maybe... just maybe... Anyone want to start a paypal to buy slashdot.org with me? If you still want to read the news, we'll provide a link to their new homepage, whichever company they decide to bid for.

Re:Out of All Curiousity... Buy MSFT.com? (2, Interesting)

drsoran (979) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835729)

The difference being, unlike the ordinary average netizen and small company operating on the web, any of those people could easily sick their lawyers on Verisign and their domain name would be renewed in less than an hour even though someone else bought it. It's really funny (in a sad sort of way) how the Internet has been changed and shaped to reflect the real life world. 7 or 8 years ago you could escape the "real" world into cyberspace where everyone was equal and everyone had an equal chance of putting up a killer site that would attract interested users. These days the only sites that seem to get many hits are the mega-conglomerates and the multi-billion dollar corporations that already have brick and mortar existences. These days we have bouncing flash ads that take up the entire screen in order to turn the Net into a god damned TV replacement complete with advertising and commercial breaks. Bah humbug.

Over-milking the cash cow (5, Interesting)

nsample (261457) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835371)

Verisign is making money off an option that it may not even be possible to exercise! In their proposal, they plan to take the $40 to waitlist a .com regardless of whether or not the name becomes free. So, for instance, they'll happily sell you on to the waitlist for "ibm.com", even though you have no expectation of the name ever lapsing.

It's something that would make stock brokers proud. It's an option that can never be exercised in many cases, yet Verisign would collect full face value. And that face value of $40 is way more than the $6 they get for actually registering a new name.

I guess the theory is that "someone else bought it before, so you should pay us a lot for it this time around." Are there no limits to the intenet-ridiculous?

What we really need (3, Interesting)

johnburton (21870) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835373)

What we really need is an alternative DNS for those of us that know what we are doing.

Sure, most people would never be able to get at our web sites or send us email, only those who knew enough to use an alternative DNS but that's almost certainly not a bad thing. Keep out most of the idiots and most of the spam.

I'm amazed nobody has done this already. Or did I just miss it?

Re:What we really need (4, Informative)

Lionfire (103856) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835393)

There are plenty of alternatives, but that's half the problem. Without a single, focussed effort, we'll never make a dent in the established system.

If you're still interested, try:

http://www.opennic.unrated.net/
http://www.open-rsc.org/
http://www.alternic.org/
http://www.tinc-org.com/
http://www.name-space.com/

Re:What we really need (2)

johnburton (21870) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835398)

Ah. Typical.

What the world needs is to unify all of these in some way. Surely that's possible?

Re:What we really need (2, Interesting)

ethereal (13958) | more than 12 years ago | (#2836129)

Unity is good. But a unified, centralized root server system run by unscrupulous frauds got us into this mess in the first place. Are you willing to bet that the mistake-that-is-NSI will never happen again?

My prediction: in 10 years DNS is obsolete. It will be replaced by the search-engine-name-system, where you ask your PDA's search engine where to find such-and-such a company, and it sends you to their site. Domain names are just a crutch to find the site; by then we'll have much better crutches.

Of course, at that point there will be lots of squabbles over who gets listed first by which search engine, etc. It's always some damn thing :)

okay (2)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835395)

you mean like this [unrated.net] ?

Re:What we really need (1)

derch (184205) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835973)

Keep out most of the idiots and most of the spam

As well as our brothers, sisters, best friends, and parents. I'm sure as Hell not going to every relative's home, setting up there system to use an alternate DNS, just so they can send me email.

Side effects? (5, Insightful)

atcroft (123896) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835390)

Since you can transfer names between registrars, what happens if someone decides to buy one in this when someone else is legitimately trying to get it but doesn't want to use Verisign/NSI (V/NSI)?

This also sounds a bit like it is aimed for those same who would try to sue anyone with a domain name containing even the same letters or digits as their trademark (even though there are only 36 of them total). Now, if you fail to renew on time, will they be able to grab your domain from under you, or will there be a "cooling off" period for domains before they can be taken over by the person purchasing them in this auction?

I am sure these are only the tip of the iceberg, once this policy is considered. It seems to me that such a policy would require the application of thought, logic, and common sense, to try to minimize problems should it be implemented. (I know-my experience leads me to believe that such won't be applied either.)

Re:Side effects? (2)

arkanes (521690) | more than 12 years ago | (#2836113)

Well, if verisign keep it's normal QoS, a large corp with lots of cash and lawyers will be able to, while a private individual or small buissness without legal representation on tap will be pooched.

Seems pretty stupid (2)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835400)

Well, this seems pretty stupid. I mean, Why not just have the people get in contact with those who already own the domain? If I wanted a domain that seemed to be out of use and someone was ahead of me in 'line' what's stopping me from just getting in contact with the person who owns the domain and buying it? Or will NetSol (the brand still used for name sales) put some weird shit in their contract saying you can't sell the domain if someone is on the wait list?

Talk about lameness. Why did the government have to sell the DNS system to these losers?

I was looking at your site for the 1st time (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835485)

And now I have a hot throbbing sensation in my pants. Is this normal?

Re:Seems pretty stupid (1)

underpaidISPtech (409395) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835537)

>Why did the government have to sell the DNS system to these losers?

I have a feeling that it wouldn't matter who gained the monopoly at the time Internic(?) went private. Netsol was in the right place at the right time in history. What private company in the early childhood of the Information Revolution *isn't* doing it's best to rape everyone?

Unfortunately, business is business, and it is that mentality that allows people to act in a manner that in any other environment would be considered criminal.

In a 1000 years, anthropologists will wonder and spend their lifetimes trying to unravel the Culture of Capitalism (Or is it the Culture of Consumerism, I'm beginning to forget if I'm supposed to make lots or spend lots. Please O Lord of TV-Ads, guide me...) Similiar to the way we ponder and gape at cultures that practice(d) human sacrifice.

(I'm not equating human sacrifice with losing your domain name, just trying to illustrate a point.)

Get on the waitlist for www.off-topic-rant.com!

Re:Seems pretty stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2836153)

(Or is it the Culture of Consumerism, I'm beginning to forget if I'm supposed to make lots or spend lots. Please O Lord of TV-Ads, guide me...)

I don't know about him (although an image of Michael Flatley danced through my mind), but the President says you should be buying stuff, even if the airlines that he bailed out have since fired you :) And people say that Republicans aren't all about big business...

Re:Seems pretty stupid (2)

pgrote (68235) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835796)

There are several issues with contacting the current owner:

1) Sometimes they no longer exist. Their contact information such as telephone number and email are not valid. This usually happens when someone spent $500.00 one night and registered a ton of names in speculation.

2) They will reregister and then demand an outrageous fee for the domain name. That has happened more than once.

Patrick

Re:Seems pretty stupid (1)

joe52 (74496) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835862)

I definitely agree with number 2. I am watching a domain that expired in December, but I don't want to contact the old owner. They were trying to sell the domain and I am sure that they would ask far more than I would be willing to pay to transfer the name to me.

-Joe

Waste of time? (2, Interesting)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835401)

A waiting list for blah.com.
So if I add my name to the waiting list for Microsoft.com do I get it after the current expiry? Now there's a pr0n URL :)
Last I saw networksolutions were offering a 'automatic grabbing' service which you paid your money for, and if they didn't reregister in time it did it for you automatically.
Just so you can try and steal someones domain [snapnames.com] (this is linked off network solutions). I don't really see how a waiting list is any different, and I also reckon it's a really daft idea.
Then again, NSI (sorry, verisign) do have some decidedly dodgy practices regarding domain names. Like auctioning (not going back into the $35 pool or whatever the cost is) old domain names on "Great Domains" [greatdomains.com]
Or charging a 'preference' rate to get a domain transfer request actioned in 2 days rather than 6 weeks.
Looks like yet another extortion tactic by the domain monopoly.

Time to replace DNS... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835408)

Why don't we come up with a nice peer to peer system that does everything that DNS does and more?

It could even run in parallel with the existing domain name servers. If it turned out to be better then it will eventually superceed the existing system.

We need to get out from under this obsenity that is the monopoly on domain names. Doesn't it worry anyone else that what is essentially an extension of the US government runs the DNS system? I bet the NSA maintains the root DNS servers as part of the Echelon program and monitors exactly who is asking for what domain names.

It may even be possible to use this new system to make new kinds of peer to peer file systems scale to any size.

Re:Time to replace DNS... (3, Insightful)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835416)

Peer to peer DNS sounds like a fun idea (well I rather like it). The drawback is the arbitration of domain names (or whatever). I mean, if everyone is peers, then that means that multiple people can lay claim to a particular name.
IMHO that's why the current system works well enough - it's a first come first served, and sue them if you don't like it, but at least I don't have to worry about my vanity domain being taken off me by someone else on the P2P network.

Re:Time to replace DNS... (2)

johnburton (21870) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835492)

I like the sound of peer to peer dns.
The problems with the current system are that it requires a "root" and whoever owns that root has the power to impose their will on the rest of the system.

So far I've not managed to think of a way to make this work though :-(

What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835916)


What if we had them form a bunch of peers at the .com, .net, .biz level. Basically break the root up into a bunch of peers. Your root is the .domain that you yourself belong to. If I was, lets say, bar.biz and I wanted to resolve foo.com, then I would goto .biz and have it forward the request to .com for me, like root forwards everything now.

Since they are all peers of each other they would need a table that could hold all the possible names and the address that the name would resolve to, plus an alternative address if the primary failed.

Make it so that the root domain name is limited to 6 characters. And that all the root domains are peers of each other. Have a rule that no individual or company can own more than one domain. If you sign up to host a root domain, then you can charge no more than $10 a year for the service.

At least this way there can be some competition for services and it would be easy to add new root domains. Unlike the government monopoly we have now. Individuals could actually manage a small part of the web and make a chunk of change doing it.

And if we had even a fraction of 6^26 different companies all managing a portion of the internet name space then it would definately be much more scalable than now.

Imagine if we had 10,000 root domains all competing for customers? And if you didn't like any of the existing ones that are in operation, you pay a $100 fee to an open standards body whose only job is to track the master list of domain name, primary server and secondary server and start your own service.

We can even just exclude the existing 20 root domains from the list like .com, .net, .edu and the like and have hosts on the .sex domain switch to the old dns lookup system if they are trying to lookup foo.com.

BTW, I thought up this system so I have dibs on the .sex, .kinky and .pervert domain names. he he he

I would also like to see sub categories for companies... it should be pepsi.cola.drink and coke.cola.drink

It should be cherochee.jeep.suv.vhcl and prius.toyota.car.vhcl and econoline.ford.van.vhcl

And sucks should reflect everything. So you can find the companies marketing stance at product.company.industry, but you can find complains against the company, if any, at product.company.industry.sucks

It's called "Bang Routing". Been there, done that (3, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835501)

Over a decade and a half ago, the domainists tried to talk everybody into giving up the decentralized name system the UUCP network used and going to a centrally-coordinated hierarchical name system. "Foo" said some of us "Nobody'll give up the ability to go naming their computers whatever they feel like, or at least the 17 people who already named well-known machines 'frodo' or 'mozart' won't want to fight over who gets to keep the name, and besides, ihnp4!allegra!houxa!wcs is a fine naming convention, and Peter Honeyman's 'pathalias' tool is and excellent automated tool for finding paths if you don't already know them from reading email or Usenet messages."


Much more eloquent things [bell-labs.com] said Rob Pike [bell-labs.com] and Peter [menlo.com] Weinberger [bell-labs.com] .
Also, SDSI [mit.edu] by Ron Rivest and Butler Lampson touches on the same territory.

Re:It's called "Bang Routing". Been there, done th (2)

johnburton (21870) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835521)

Well, bang routing is fine for a few hundred or thousand hosts, but doesn't really scale to hundreds of millions of hosts. And unlike dns can't cope with any of the route changing.

On the other hand, the article you mention SDSI [mit.edu] looks really interesting. I've only looked at it quickly, but it does look like a good way to organise what is essentially a peer to peer replacement for dns, but which can incorporate dns too.

Re:Time to replace DNS... (1, Insightful)

drsoran (979) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835757)

You don't need to replace the DNS system. The DNS system works fine the way it is. The problem is the administration that controls the DNS database that gets pushed out to the root servers is corrupt. The answer is an international non-profit group that has no shareholders to please and isn't worried about making money to inflate their stock prices based on their monopoly. It's easy to do guys. You just need to convince the majority of DNS servers in the world that your root servers are the blessed ones and have them use your root.cache file instead of NSI's. Suddenly, overnight NSI and ICANN becomes completely irrelevent to the world. It's something that'll never happen of course because people are too reluctant (or lazy?) to change these days. We've become sloppy and let the corporate monopolies take over the one world that we still had a chance to mold to our liking. I guess in the end, Americans (and the majority of Internet users) are just a bunch of capitalist lap-dogs at heart. That really saddens me. We need to stir up enough grass-roots support to get people to at least use another common root system that doesn't overlap with NSI's in parallel and eventually just cut over to it completely.

NSI's bus. practices (3, Interesting)

MathJMendl (144298) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835411)

Hmm. Does anyone remember this [slashdot.org] story, about how NSI holds expired domain names? I guess we are seeing the resolution of that. They really have no right to auction off domain names before they expire. This is just another example of them abusing their control of the DNS registries (in addition to things such as taking a large commission out of every domain name sale, so that even if you register with their competitors they gain money).

Someone really should do something. Too bad ICANN can't do anything. Maybe they could, but I don't see the old members giving up their spots to the elected anytime soon. Plus, NSI could "accidentally" cause down time if they tried to move the DNS registries. Unfortunately though, there are no feasable alternates.

Downward Spiral (4, Interesting)

Jesus IS the Devil (317662) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835425)

We are ALL collectively being screwed by NSI and we need to recognize and put a stop to this. Slowly they've been implementing changes that do nothing but erode our rights in order to increase their corporate profits and protect what little monopoly they have left.

First they started holding onto domain names that have expired. Then they implemented a system that makes it really tough for someone to transfer their domain name to another registrar. Now this.

Let me tell you what NSI is REALLY up to.

They've had the lionshare of domain name registrations since the beginning of the internet. So it's of no surprise that they have the largest pool of expired names. NSI holds on to every single one of them. Thousands, perhaps millions. They pay $0 to hold on to those names.

Now they start auctioning off these names. They've turned into nothing more than the world's largest CYBER-SQUATTER!

Let me make another prediction. If this change is allowed to go through, next they'll be saying, "if you win a name by auction for say $10,000, then from that point on every year you will have to pay $10,000 to renew that domain name, and you won't be allowed to change registrars either!"

It's time for the government to castrated NSI/Verisign.

Re:Downward Spiral (1)

thogard (43403) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835473)

Hey, I just sent an email message to this guy [doc.gov] email [mailto] pointing out that Verisign is cybersquating and the Dept of Commerce has an obligation to do something about it or else they are breaking US law.

My proposal was that they should release names on a published schedule.

Re:Downward Spiral (4, Insightful)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835636)

It's time for the government to castrated NSI/Verisign.


Then let's do something about it. Contact your local better business bureau [bbb.org] and complain, citing specific examples of how they've screwed *you*. Make it professional and personal. The web hosting company I work for has already called the BBB (last week, actually) about Network Solutions on behalf of some of our clients, and the person handling the case sounded rather interested.

~z

Re:Downward Spiral (2)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835640)

actually i think it may be the BBB where NSI is located, which would be the BBB link on the parent post, and put in zip code 94043.

Extending their monopoly - without asking ICANN? (3, Interesting)

ukryule (186826) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835429)

It seems there is a problem to be solved here: at the moment there is no process for registering for soon-to-expire domains.

Verisign have been granted a monopoly from ICANN to handle the registration process. However, this proposed system is clearly extending this monopoly from the registration of new domains (via registrars) to a pre-registration phase.

This must be a matter that ICANN should take responsibility for. The way to allow pre-registration should be defined, and explicitly included in any registry agreement - if the only sensible way to approach it is to allow Verisign a monopoly then it should be regulated accordingly (i.e. $46 is way too much to be allowed). Apart from anything else, it would be nice to have a standard process for all TLDs (.com/.uk/.whatever).

Re:Extending their monopoly - without asking ICANN (2)

bfree (113420) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835648)

I hate to disagree but I cannot see any reason for a "pre-registration" process. NSI^H^H^HNetSol^H^H^H^H^H^HVerisign should simply be forced to release domain names on a known schedule (i.e. 0/5 days after expiration, preferably at the original time of registration). Then everyone can jump in and try to buy it first :-) As long as their is no systemic preference for who will get any domain (like people who pay the extra to go through the worst registrar [netsol.com] should not be able to purchase first) this system would be fine.

As for having a standard process across all TLDs, you are living in a wildly optimistic dreamland, but that's ok with me, I'd rather let some TLDs make their own bizarre rules than have one set of rules created by one global devil.

Re:Extending their monopoly - without asking ICANN (1)

spooge21 (160717) | more than 12 years ago | (#2836009)

Actually this is how the current system works, if you can even say it works. The problem is that this system is proving to be too expensive on the Registry side of things - they cannot handle the load (which is similar to a denial of service attack) and cannot afford to augment their systems merely to handle domain deletions.

Re: Disturbing news about cmdrtaco (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835442)

are you sure that you can back that claim up? It seems highly dubious. Though that link you included seems to really shed some light on the subject.

I really think that people here on slashdot should know about this. Thank you for letting us know.

Re: Disturbing news about cmdrtaco (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835446)

No shit? How the hell does he think he could ever get away with this??

That's just plain wrong. I think VA Software should fire him. And that secretary should definately press charges. Does Michigan have good 'object rape' laws? I heard about a similar case in Ohio, and one of the guys who fought to get the law enacted actually got busted and convicted under it.

Help spread the truth. We can't let thing sort of thing go unpunished!!

Car Salesmen Are Turning Green With Envy (4, Funny)

guttentag (313541) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835463)

"What do you mean they've found a way to sell used stuff for six times its original value?! We've been trying to do that for nearly a century!"

You know, I've had my eye on my neighbor's car for some time now... maybe I should put myself on the DMV's waitlist so I can snatch it from him when he's late in renewing his registration. I'd better start saving now, though, because I saw the old lady across the street checking it out today.

Hot cheeseballs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835464)

Mmmm...hot and gooey cheeseballs!

re-register every day? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835477)

I hope this isn't redundant, but wouldn't this mean that domain owners would have to re-register their domains several times a day to make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands when it expires? (ie, the domain expires every minute of every day since anyone can come along and buy it just like that)

Or people would be forced to register domains for 50 years and on? In that case it would cause an even bigger lack of available domain names than there already is.

/penhead

Re:re-register every day? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835496)

Anonymous Coward wrote:

re-register every day? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14, @06:22AM (#2835477)
I hope this isn't redundant, but wouldn't this mean that domain owners would have to re-register their domains several times a day to make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands when it expires? (ie, the domain expires every minute of every day since anyone can come along and buy it just like that)

Or people would be forced to register domains for 50 years and on? In that case it would cause an even bigger lack of available domain names than there already is.

/penhead

Re:re-register every day? (1)

spooge21 (160717) | more than 12 years ago | (#2836054)

No, it just means that you need to register through a Registrar which can be trusted to not delete your name without getting explicit permission. The burden will always be upon your (the registrant's) shoulders but a good registrar will offer facilities to make protecting your name easier.

Discretion and fairness (2)

imrdkl (302224) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835490)

I wouldn't mind paying some amount of money to pre-register a domain which I expected to expire for some reason. But such a scheme would be dependent upon Verisign to keep my interest confidential from the current owner.

What happens if the name doesn't expire? (5, Funny)

guttentag (313541) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835506)

Perhaps I missed something in both articles. I don't see any mention of how this system is supposed to work, but here's what I envision:

January 2002

  • My domain name expires in 6 months.
  • My neighbor wants my domain name, so he pays NetSol $50 to be waitlisted.
June 2002
  • I log on to netsol.com and renew my domain for another year.
  • NetSol takes my renewal money and keeps some or all of my neighbor's money.
  • My neighbor is SOL (but he'll get another chance next year!).
IIRC from the college entrance experience, "waitlisted" is not a guarantee. It's a "we'll see." It sounds like NetSol is forming an online gambling institution: people pay NetSol for the right to purchase a domain name in the event that the current doesn't renew.

That's like going to the only real estate agent in town and giving him money to guarantee you your neighbor's house in the event that your neighbor decides to sell. In fact, you have to do that this becomes the only way you can buy an existing house in town because if you don't someone else will.

:::GASP:::

Could the proverbial "abuse of absolute power" we've all heard about in fables but never seen with our own eyes?

I think there's a way around this. Contact the owner of the domain you want and ask if he's going to renew. If he's not going to, offer to buy it from him for half of what NetSol would charge for the waitlist fee. That way you save money, the person who was dropping the domain makes some money, and NetSol doesn't get anything it hasn't earned.

And I thought ebay sniping was bad... (1, Offtopic)

Ikari Gendou (93109) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835508)

I can just imagine the frustration when someone gets bid sniped for hotteenllamasex.org

Wait for this one ... (1)

styxlord (9897) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835543)

So they start auctioning off domain names before they expire. Then when the domain name does expire jack up the price of renewal now that the "fair market value" of the domain has been determined. They are just renting the domain names out after all, so they probably figure charging 10% of the value of the domain name is fair.

What scares me is that Verisign would probably pull a stunt like this. Makes me oh so happy that I moved all my domains away from these a-holes years ago.

What!?! - Surely No One Is Dumb Enough (1)

The Whinger (255233) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835554)

This IS ridiculous. Anyone that PAYS Network Solutions to join a waiting list for a domain name needs a small brain bypass.

In the most trivial of cases you would be the only one in the queue, and the registrant would renew and NSI would make money out of you.

In the more complicated cases they would be a few people in the queue for the same domain, and the registrant would renew and NSI would make a shed-load.

Most people buy domain names for the haul ... the chances of you wanting one that is going to expire ... are small.

NSI are just out to fleece their users.

Re:What!?! - Surely No One Is Dumb Enough (1)

drsoran (979) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835778)

NSI are just out to fleece their users.

Of course they are. They've always been out to make money ever since they started charging for domain names. Yet every time their contract comes up for renewal someone keeps them on. They must have some pretty dirty laundry on whoever is granting this monopoly to them because if I was ICANN I'd have given them the boot already. Publicly traded companies should NOT control a vital part of the Internet infrastructure as a monopoly. Period.

Frauds bad enough as it is! (3, Informative)

The Mutant (167716) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835556)

I've got several domains (you-suck.com and lots of other classy names), and over the years have experienced multiple attempts to steal them.

Now the jokers will have a real incentive, having paid cash for something they haven't gotten!

This will only escalate fraud!

Re:Frauds bad enough as it is! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2836033)

Well, I went to your web page. With an IE browser. My friend, I think it's you that sucks. Standard or not, I don't think you've noticed that netscape sucks, and netscape 6 is the only adequate thing they've put out in years. Your open source zealotry is tiring, as it is any where else. If you're going to put up a page, don't be a prick about it. Besides what neato features did you put up that IE doesn't render correctly?

Or is this some kind of lame ass retaliation for microsoft doing the same thing on some other site?

ICANNWatch links (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835560)

There's a good discussion of the issue at ICANNWatch.org, in particular: http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=511&mode =&order=0" [icannwatch.org]

Absurd, unnecessary, and unwanted. (3, Insightful)

dbaker (7409) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835564)

The entire concept is absolutely absurd.

Such a product (I'm uncomfortable calling it a 'feature') would encourage domain squatting and further pollute the available namespace.

However, I'm not oblivious to the fact that it would be profitable for registrars that are involved. I miss the days of the non-profit Internic. With all of the 'progress,' I don't really see a single thing that's better about root management and domain registration today than it was in, say, 1994. In 8 years, all that we've done is create a handful of useless companies and waste a significant amount of money. That's without even mentioning the countless leeches (domain squatters) that are encouraged by this system.

This is the wrong step to take for Internet DNS. Luckily, this is only a proposal and thus not much should be made of it. I'd be quite shocked if this made it much further, especially in the state that it's in.

Cheers.

Verisign is making money off.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835577)

Verisign is making money off an option that it may not even be possible to exercise! In their proposal, they plan to take the $40 to waitlist a .com regardless of whether or not the name becomes free. So, for instance, they'll happily sell you on to the waitlist for "ibm.com", even though you have no expectation of the name ever lapsing.

It's something that would make stock brokers proud. It's an option that can never be exercised in many cases, yet Verisign would collect full face value. And that face value of $40 is way more than the $6 they get for actually registering a new name.

I guess the theory is that "someone else bought it before, so you should pay us a lot for it this time around." Are there no limits to the intenet-ridiculous?

Surely this is what Snapnames do? (4, Informative)

Dynamoo (527749) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835581)

Making a wild stab in the dark, NSI/Verisign are doing this in response to the similar service offered by Snapnames.

If you don't know about Snapnames, read about it here [dynamoo.com] , but essentially it's a back-ordering service.

NSI are actually a Snapnames affiliate, so they get $7 per back-ordered name through their site. I guess they want the rest of the money too.

Re:Surely this is what Snapnames do? (2)

pgrote (68235) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835805)

SnapNames doesn't circumvent the process of deleted/expired domains. Basically they check the available names each day to see if yours is available. They wait like everyone else to see if it is available.

I use Name Winner at http://www.namewinner.com. They do the same thing, but for less cost.

You guys got it all wrong (3, Insightful)

kawaichan (527006) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835655)

The main reason why this would probably work is the fact that this is to scare the s*** out of current domain name owners, let me explain.

Let's say you are the owner of Slashdot.org, you surely don't want someone to "steal" your domain if you have forgot to renew your domain. Remember they've just have an option to register the domain for 10 years? Seeing next to no one is going for that (god knows what happens to the net in 10 years). With ths waitlist thing, more people would probably go for a longer registratoin period because they don't want to lose their domain name.

Re:You guys got it all wrong (2)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835724)

at $6.95 a year through Godaddy [godaddy.com] getting anything BUT 10 years is a waste of money.

The Current Situation (5, Informative)

spooge21 (160717) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835713)

I would like to offer a bit of perspective on why Verisign is doing this. First it is important to note that it is Verisign GRS [verisign-grs.com] (the registry) which is considering this and not Network Solutions [networksolutions.com] (the Verisign Registrar). Currently when a name expires it is up to each registrar to determine what happens to that name. When a domain expires it is actually automatically renewed by the registry. It is then up to the registrar to decide if the name should be deleted permanently. The registrar has up to 45 days to make that decision before the 1 year renewal fee is permanent.

Now, Verisign the Registrar releases a lot of domains to the public right now after a certain period of time. At this time the names are released and numerous registrars attempt to snag those names when they are dropped. This practice has caused headaches to no end at Verisign the Registry. It essentially acts as a denial of service attack as all the different registrars pound the registry trying to snatch those dropped names. Were talking hundreds of thousands of queries every minute.

This new propsed system is a response to this situation. It is designed to end the constant pounding of the registry. Granted it may not be the best solution but it is only the first draft and it must be okayed by ICANN first, thus there is a strong possibility that it will not be implemented. However something is needed in order to make the domain deletion process less system intensive as the registry cannot continue to support the amount of traffic caused by these domains dropping.

Re:The Current Situation (1)

sh00z (206503) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835907)

Now, Verisign the Registrar releases a lot of domains to the public right now after a certain period of time. At this time the names are released and numerous registrars attempt to snag those names when they are dropped. This practice has caused headaches to no end at Verisign the Registry.
But that's their fscking job! That's exactly what they are contracted to do: cope with the registration/expiration process. If they don't want the headaches associated being a government-sponsored monopoly, they should get out of the business rather than propose an illegal lottery [wired.com] .

Re:The Current Situation (1)

spooge21 (160717) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835997)

Verisign the Registry has tried to cope with this situation. They have been working for the past 6 months to try to find a reasonable solution which provides equal access to all registrars. Unfortunately they have not been able to do that using purely technical means.

The agreement with the Department of Commerce [verisign.com] states "NSI shall take all reasonable steps to ensure the continued operation, functionality, and accessibility of the Shared Registration System." Appearently this is the next reasonable step.

As I stated in my previous post there proposal may not be the best solution. However I think it is unfair to compare what they are doing with what occurred at that other registry [neulevel.biz] .

Re:The Current Situation (1)

sh00z (206503) | more than 12 years ago | (#2836013)

Unfortunately they have not been able to do that using purely technical means.
As you seem to be in the know, can you tell us what is considered "reasonable steps?" Exactly how much money did they spend on fatter pipes and faster servers before deciding that extortion is a better option?

Re:The Current Situation (1)

spooge21 (160717) | more than 12 years ago | (#2836077)

I do not have exact amounts but I can tell you that they were dedicating multiple machines just for the deletion process. While I cannot be sure, I believe that they took machines away from the normal registration system (which operates at a fairly stable transaction rate) to support the deletion process.

They have also limited both number of allowed connections per registrar as well as allowed bandwidth when accessing these machines. These actions helped for a while but utilization is now back up to near 100% on a regular basis and they have had to put new limits in. In order to keep the system running they cannot continue like this indefinately...unless you would like them to raise normal registration fees to support it.

Re:The Current Situation (1)

sh00z (206503) | more than 12 years ago | (#2836138)

they cannot continue like this indefinately...unless you would like them to raise normal registration fees to support it.
If that's what it takes to keep the system above-board, yes. My problem is that I have a
typosquatter [definition] [techtarget.com] who has registered a lookalike domain name, with "Domain for sale" on the top line of his whois registry. I'm waiting him out, and plan to register the domain when he finally gets tired of spending money on it (no, my domain is not a trademark, and I can't afford to sue). The last thing I want to do is put up a billboard at NetSol telling him what I'm thinking.

Re:The Current Situation (1)

ethereal (13958) | more than 12 years ago | (#2836187)

When a domain expires it is actually automatically renewed by the registry.
But they're creating their own headaches by doing this! Just delete the name every time, without exception and without fanfare, and let the other registrars figure out that it's gone when it's gone. Better yet, randomize the release time over, say, a week or two, and IP ban anyone who hits the site more than once or twice a minute. This is not exactly rocket science here, you know. If someone really did want to renew it, they're maybe entitled to one or two warning emails and maybe a week's grace period, but after that delete the domain and let them scramble for it.

There are domains that are still registered which have expired more than a year ago, so somebody's not doing their job right. The public shouldn't be denied the right to get those domains just so that NSI/Verisign can coddle a few ruthless domain speculators. And if they had some leadership in realms other than money-grubbing, maybe NSI/Verisign would figure some of this out.

Excellent concept, it should be applied. (1)

ConnortheMad (546429) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835737)

My grandparents have a house that they own, which I'm going to place on the real estate. Since they are in their mid-eighties, they should be set to expire in about three to four years. This is of course if their divine power fails to renew them. Why should they be upset if I presell their house?

I don't understand (2)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835756)

I don't even understand how this would work. It seems to indicate that they would be trying to sell the domain, before it even expires? Thought one pretty much had up till the expire date on the record, get they next payment in?

Extortion (1)

f00zbll (526151) | more than 12 years ago | (#2835758)

As others have mentioned, this so called "new feature" isn't for sqautters. To put it plainly, it's corporate extortion on a global scale.

Legitimate businesses won't take the risk of loosing their domain, so it artificially increase Verisign's revenues. The problem with this approach is it's predatory. Hopefully ICANN and corporations can speak out against these practices and prevent it. This feature isn't about joe blow who has a personal domain. It's about corporations. Registrars know corporations won't think twice about the chance of loosing their domain considering the cost of legal battle.

On the otherhand, the cost of registration and renewal is so cheap these days, it could slip by under the radar.

wait list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835774)

Why is it called a wait list, what is the point of more than one person waiting in line for a pre-paid domain?

One word for verisign. 'stupidweaselbastards'

10+ months and counting for domain name expire..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2835814)

Exactly.. MONEY MONEY MONEY! I've had my eye on a domain name that expired back on April 15 2001. It has YET to be removed from their database and when I inquire, NSI suggests I sign-up for this new "first come first serve" registration queue.
It was explained to me that for ONLY $45 (USD) you'd be placed in a queue to purchase the domain upon availability, through a third party company. Let me guess... the domain I'm looking at hasn't been removed in 10 months... but I bet if I pay this $45 to get in line, it will mysteriously be available?

Network Solutions and their slave labour. (3, Interesting)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 12 years ago | (#2836049)

So there I was, bee-bopping through my work day, and the phone rings.

"Hello?"
"Is this Mr. Fantastic Lad?"
"Why, yes it is! What can I-"
"Please hold."
"What?" I'm on hold. So I hang up.

Ring ring ring:
"Y'ello?"
"Um, Mr. Fantastic Lad?"
"That's me. Who is this?"
"I'm calling from Network Solutions. Are you the owner of *********.com?"
"I don't think you understood my question. I don't care who you work for. Who are YOU? What's your name?"
"Um. . , (gives name)" Let's call him, 'Bob'.
"Okay, Bob. Did you just call ten seconds ago, ask for me, and then put me on hold?"
"Well, yes, but I have an important-"
"Stop talking Bob. You blew your chance at 'nice' by being incredibly rude. Nobody likes to be put on hold for no good reason. Do you understand just how rude it is to call somebody and then immediately put them on hold? It's a psychological trick used to establish dominance in a conversation. Do you think I want to be in a submissive position when I'm talking to a total stranger? Bob?"
Pause. "It's not a psychological trick. I'm just calling-"
"Look, Bob. You might be a somewhat nice guy on your own time, but for the purposes of here and now, I've decided that I really don't like you. I don't want to have an actual conversation with you. So I'm only looking for one word answers here. Look up from your little script, and answer either 'Yes' or 'No', or I'm ending this call. Got it?"
"But I've got important information about your account. I've-"
"Bob. . !"
"Sorry. Sorry."
"Alright then. Okay. Now first things first: Please answer this question: --Do you think I like being called up and put on hold by a total stranger?"
(Annoyed sound) ". . . No."
"That's right, I don't. And most people don't. In the future, you should consider that before being acting like a dick on the phone. I don't care if this is how you were instructed to treat people. If you find yourself faced with having to choose between being socially decent and following instructions by your boss to mistreat people, you should take it up with your employer and if you can't get beyond the impasse, you should quit. You've got a crappy job anyway. There are a lot of other things you could be doing in the world. Being rude to people over the phone is a choice you're making. And it's a dumb one. Now then. . , you tell me you work for Network Solutions?"
"Yeah."
"Alright. Now then, does Network Solutions really have something to call me about that I actually need to hear, or is it just an attempt to sell me something I don't want?"
"You might want it."
"Ahh. I see. So this is a sales call, then. So what, exactly, are you selling?"
"Well, I don't know, actually. . . My job is just to call people up, and verify that they own the web address on my list, and then connect them to the sales people."
"Sigh. Oh, Bob. I see you've been compartmentalized. I sympathize with you, Bob. -I'd quit your shit job in five seconds flat if I were you, but I do sympathize with you. And you don't actually have any idea what your sales people want to push on me?"
"I'm just told to tell people that it's important."
"Gotcha. Well, I'm sure if it's that important, they'll be in touch. I'm going to hang up now, Bob. Good luck with your life, and honestly. You should really consider quitting. Don't let the world bully you into thinking that you need to take their bullshit treatment of you. You won't die if you take the jump, Bob. Goodbye."
"Bye."
Click.


I got this call about five months ago. I'm told by others who received similar calls, that Network Solutions was trying to get people to buy similar sounding website names before competitors bought them up. A lame sales fear-tactic.

Verisign can go to hell.


-Fantastic Lad

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?