×

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!

The .EU Landrush Fiasco

Zonk posted about 8 years ago | from the yeehaw dept.

259

googleking writes "Bob Parsons, CEO and Founder of GoDaddy.com, has blogged about the .EU landrush fiasco. During the landrush phase for names which opened last Friday, established 'big name' registrars got exactly equal chances of registering names as did anyone who chose to bill themselves as a registrar. Bob asserts that hundreds of these new 'registrars' are actually fake fronts for a big name US company." From the article: "Here's how it works: All the accredited registrars line up and each registrar gets to make one request for a .EU domain name. If the name is available, the registrar gets the name for its customer. If the name is not available, the registrar gets nothing. Either way, after making the request, the registrar goes to the back of the line and won't get to make another request, until all the registrars in the line in front of it make their requests. This continues until all requests have been made and the landrush process is over ... The landrush process on the surface seems very fair. But there was something wrong with the process -- very wrong."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

259 comments

Go figure... (4, Insightful)

Disavian (611780) | about 8 years ago | (#15099950)

If there's a way to cheat, it will be found.

Re:Go figure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100112)

This fiasco is so bad, I will be recommending we filter .EU from our top level DNS servers, as a boycotting measure.

Re:Go figure... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100143)

Who is the "we"? You and your mom?

As I said... (0)

TCM (130219) | about 8 years ago | (#15099952)

Just as I said here [slashdot.org].

Re:As I said... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100053)

Richguy Parsons is a fucking whiner.

Re:As I said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100098)

You gotta admit though...

This should shut up all those European who bitch and moan about American and ICANN.

Proof that the internet would be a total disaster if they got their way...

That is BS (3, Informative)

protich (961854) | about 8 years ago | (#15099968)

I was involved in the Landrush. Each registrar was allowed one request per second. NO round-robin/line as mentioned on the sumarry.

Re:That is BS (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 8 years ago | (#15099995)

I was involved in the Landrush. Each registrar was allowed one request per second. NO round-robin/line as mentioned on the sumarry.

In any case, the author has a point. A round-robin would be a much better case, so your statement only reinforces the idea of american companies cheating.

Thanks for the info, btw.

Re:That is BS (5, Insightful)

LunaticTippy (872397) | about 8 years ago | (#15100011)

I was involved in the Landrush. Each registrar was allowed one request per second. NO round-robin/line as mentioned on the sumarry.

You don't understand?! If registrar X had 99 bogus registrars set up they get 100/second. That's more than 1/second.

Re:That is BS (0)

protich (961854) | about 8 years ago | (#15100052)

I do understand it. Bogus registrars was/is the problem...but Bob made it sound like a registrar makes a request and goes back to the end of the line to wait for another chance..That is misleading, the point is each of the registrars have equal change of connecting make request every second.

Re:That is BS (3, Insightful)

LunaticTippy (872397) | about 8 years ago | (#15100227)

I do understand it.

No, you don't.

That is misleading, the point is each of the registrars have equal change of connecting make request every second.

A registrar following the spirit of the rules has 1 request/sec.
A registrar with 99 fraud registrars has 100 request/sec.

Think of the line as 1 second. Every time you make a request you go to the end of the "line." Someone with 99 shell registrars goes to the end of the "line." By the time he gets to the front of the 1 second line, their 99 other requests have also been processed.

Not only that (3, Insightful)

0xABADC0DA (867955) | about 8 years ago | (#15100166)

But the other 99 fake registrars don't need to re-issue requests made by the others (whether granted or not). So they not only can make more requests per second, but those requests are more likely to be still available.

Same difference (1)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | about 8 years ago | (#15100054)

Assuming every registrar was trying to register as fast as possible, it's basically functionally the same, just with some randomness in each "round" of registrations.

I.E., instead of (as the article put it):

ABCDE ABCDE ABCDE ABCDE ...

It's more like

ACDBE EBCDA BADCE CEABD ...

I'd argue that... (4, Interesting)

jd (1658) | about 8 years ago | (#15100271)

Nobody has any business buying more than one or two domain names anyway. Most things would be far better off in a subdomain (movies, for example), where they won't pollute the namespace AND it is explicitly clear as to who does the owning. (This would also eliminate most trademark issues, as then differentiation would be built into the system and deceptive naming would become considerably harder. For this reason, coincidental similarities in names would not be so significant as trademark issues, as it would often be provable that no confusion exists.) It also encourages cybersquatting and typo-squatting.


The clutter isn't helped by lazy, inefficient admins and registrars who don't maintain records correctly, but that's another issue altogether.


I can't help but think it would save everyone a lot of grief if all TLD admins, registrars, cybersquatters and ICANN members were just rounded up and sent to Siberia for a couple of decades.

Re:That is BS (2, Informative)

HadenT (816717) | about 8 years ago | (#15100383)

I'm surprised about this missunderstanding too. There where 3 basic rules:
Max of one connection _attempt_ per second per IP (time ban if more)
5 IPs for registrar.
One concurrent connection at time.

In perfect world this would be round-robin.
However when registry system is loaded it starts to loose connections/timeout/etc. How registrar system behaved on such conditions was very important.

Of course additional accounts changed the picture, and that was discused on EURid mailing lists - however they didn't give a damn about it.

However some registrars moved like turtles and that was mostly their (systems) fault.

sour grapes? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15099972)

Sounds like Mr. Parsons is just upset he didn't think of making the phony baloney companies like his competitors did.
He lost out, and they'll definetly get away with it.

Sometimes scams pay out. Not any more unethical than him selling out to MS for his parked domains.

Re:sour grapes? (3, Insightful)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | about 8 years ago | (#15100063)

So what? Even if its a case of sour grapes, if that has happened (and I have no reason to believe that it has not happened), then its WRONG.

We all know how valueable domain names are. I thought somebody would have learnt the lesson watching lawsuits after lawsuits on domain names, and would be extra careful while distributing a new list. But no. We continue to let system fuck itself.

Re:sour grapes? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100165)


Mr. Parsons' company has made a killing hosting thousands(millions?) of cybersquatting domains. He then takes a huge lump of cash,hardware, and software by Microsoft just to get Microsoft's IIS numbers up.

What happened here with the .EU domains may in fact be "WRONG", I just don't need this fucker to be the one complaining about it.

Re:sour grapes? (1)

shmlco (594907) | about 8 years ago | (#15100222)

"We continue to let system fuck itself."

No kidding. Especially as we let speculators snap up every domain name that expires, park it, put Google ads on it, and annouce it's for "sale" for a cheap $1,500. All based on the idea that someone once wanted it, so someone will want it in the future.

Personally, I think that the second one expires it should return to the "public" domain, as meaningful names are a finite resource, and speculators shouldn't be able to hold new businesses ransom.

Re:sour grapes from the 279 wannabe sex.eu owners (1)

sjwest (948274) | about 8 years ago | (#15100311)

I was over at Godaddy this morning (what an amateurish name) getting annoyed at bad godaddy whois entry and commented on to the subject anyhow - He paid once to eurid, the new entrants paid more. If Mr Parsons was representing all 279 wannabe owners of sex.eu sob boohoo to them.

Mr Parsons may think its unfair that his 279 clients didnt get sex.eu but since theres a lot of dubious clients already on godaddy perhaps its good thing Parsons/godaddy screwed up.

Sigh... (-1, Flamebait)

tehdely (690619) | about 8 years ago | (#15099976)

Typical European heavy-handedness and its predictably failed result. The continent is doomed.

Re:Sigh... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100132)

Typical American hypocrisy.

Don't you guys have any ethics? It is rather scary for a country full of christian fanatics. How long will it take before the rest of the world revolts against you and your moronic leaders?

Your continent is doomed indeed.

Re:Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100263)

Don't you guys have any ethics? It is rather scary for a country full of christian fanatics. How long will it take before the rest of the world revolts against you and your moronic leaders?

Our words are backed by nuclear weapons!

/ Okay, so you have endless city spamming, so it's a wash.

Re:Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100275)

Ethics? Fuck No. But we do have Christian morals, which makes it all OK.

Re:Sigh... (0)

c_forq (924234) | about 8 years ago | (#15100350)

Of course we have ethics! There is an ethic food place around the corner from me, and an ethic fashion store on my main street. And what makes ethic people more scary when with christian fanatics?

Just to be sure people don't think I am a complete idiot, this is a joke.

America's Fault. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15099979)

From the article I see that it is all the fault of "American multi-millionairs"

Umm... (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 years ago | (#15099996)

Did anyone expect anything else? It's kinda funny how naive they were, actually thinking that people would be "good" and play by the "rules".

Re:Umm... (3, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | about 8 years ago | (#15100108)

It is pretty sad, but, from experience, as soon as you start telling your superiors it won't work "because of human nature", you're already screwed. You have to make something up like, "We can't do it this way because our systems will be swamped by the massive server traffic."

I'd have set it up so that people had to apply to be able to register, so that they'd be able to weed out the illegit registrars, then I'd make everyone submit their lists, in order of preference, and work my way down.

Making it spammable is just begging for trouble.

Re:Umm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100360)

I think the whole point is that they did play by the rules, but this guy is upset about the rules.

godaddy sucks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15099997)

'nuff said

Good leaning experience for .xxx (4, Funny)

MooseTick (895855) | about 8 years ago | (#15100032)

If the .xxx ever gets implemented, this will be a good learning experience. You know there will be a massive dash for millions of xxx domains. Whoever gets to some first may become instant millionaires! I know I'll be going for bbqplate.xxx so I can show bbq porno to the masses!

Re:Good leaning experience for .xxx (1)

ThePilgrim (456341) | about 8 years ago | (#15100083)

The most wanted, and therefor the most expencive .xxx domain is going to be free.xxx

This domain will of cause lose all its value the moment some scammer pays for it.

Re:Good leaning experience for .xxx (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about 8 years ago | (#15100315)

And in a cruel twist of fate, the most valuable (and appropriate) domain name [dnsstuff.com] in the .EU TLD, appears to have been registered by precisely the kind of bogus registrar [valid.be] that the article is drawing attention to. Still, at least this one actually has a webpage, even if it is just a single page with an image stuck on it and no text what so ever.

Who said business is fair? (3, Insightful)

winkydink (650484) | about 8 years ago | (#15100036)

So GoDaddy got outsmarted by somebody who gamed the system and now they're whining about it in the CEO's blog. Kwticherbitchin and figure out how to make money, not whine over lost opportunities.

Re:Who said business is fair? (1, Flamebait)

aralin (107264) | about 8 years ago | (#15100086)

So the american citizens were screwed by the greedy corporations, who gamed the system and the even greedier polititians who even wrote their own rules for the system and now they're whining about it all the time on their blogs and everywhere else. Quit bitching and figure out how to make money, not whine over the lost opportunities.

Re:Who said business is fair? (0, Flamebait)

giorgiofr (887762) | about 8 years ago | (#15100114)

Exactly. Welcome to the real world.
Oh and would you like some cheese with that whine?

Re:Who said business is fair? (2, Insightful)

Ignignot (782335) | about 8 years ago | (#15100093)

Their approach was actually slightly different - they warned the EU that this was going to happen, and then they didn't perform the same gaming because it is unethical. They are betting that the EU will turn around and take the domains away from unethical companies, and then redo the process with the new domains. Their goal now is to force the EU to kick out the unethical companies. They have a longer term outlook than the jerks who tried to cheat the system.

Re:Who said business is fair? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100111)

Who said business is fair?
That's not why the GoDaddy is complaining. The landrush process was supposed explicitly set up to be "fair". In answer to your rhetorical questions, the EURid registry said it was supposed to be fair.

But then again, who said that slashdotters RTFA? Fool.

Re:Who said business is fair? (5, Interesting)

graffix_jones (444726) | about 8 years ago | (#15100128)

I can't believe that you think that this scam is how business works... any time you can 'game' a system, chances are that proper precautions should have been taken to prevent it, and it should've been illegal.

The point he's trying to make is that there were several unimplemented methods that would've prevented these bogus registrars from gaming the system, and in fact people running the EURid land rush were notified in advance by several 'legitimate' registrars about the loopholes in the system, and refused to do anything about it (in fact going so far as to completely ignore them).

Enron also 'gamed' the system, and look how much damage that caused. It's fair to say that this could also have some dire financial consequences against those who were meant to benefit from this process.

I think his suggestions at the end of TFA have merit, and it would be nice to see something done about this scam... I have a hunch, though, that those in the EURid who allowed the system to be 'gamed' have a financial stake in the gaming process... otherwise these loopholes would've been closed long before the land rush began.

Re:Who said business is fair? (4, Insightful)

wytcld (179112) | about 8 years ago | (#15100156)

The problem's like this: There's an inverse relationship between corruption and overall, long-term, culture-wide profitability. Yeah, somebody usually manages to get rich even in the most corrupt places. But it's a far smaller proportion that manages it. And even armored cars and bodyguards don't prevent the kidnappings and assasinations that go along with that sort of culture.

Do you really think Western Europe and North America would be better off if our business cultures fully embraced the models of Nigeria and Russia?

I do not think that means what you think... (4, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 8 years ago | (#15100042)

The landrush process on the surface seems very fair.

We apparently have radically different ideas of what counts as "fair".


established 'big name' registrars got exactly equal chances of registering names as did anyone who chose to bill themselves as a registrar

And what about Joe Jones and Sally Brown? Or more to the point, what about Steve McDonald, Cindy Frye, or Dan Walmart?

What you call "fair", I decry as massively biased right from the start. The very flaw you intend to point out, rather than making the process less fair, has imparted the only truly "fair" part of the entire dog-n'-pony.


I'll consider the process fair when humans get first choice, and trying to trademark common single English words carries the corporate death-penalty. Until then, let's not bother quibbling about whether conqueror-X or conqueror-Y managed to rape the most natives.

Re:I do not think that means what you think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100248)

And what about Joe Jones and Sally Brown? Or more to the point, what about Steve McDonald, Cindy Frye, or Dan Walmart?

I know Dan personally - he's pretty cut up about the whole thing, but he's coping.

His British friend, Colin Spud-u-like, on the other hand...

Re:I do not think that means what you think... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 8 years ago | (#15100413)

whether conqueror-X or conqueror-Y managed to rape the most natives.

Hm. I had always wondered how the whole XY chromosome thing came about.

As a European I hate to say it... (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | about 8 years ago | (#15100047)

... but this is what happens when you regulate a market. Yes it looked like a good idea on the surface. But it failed miserably. Markets NEED to be unregulated, people!
Well, at least I have no interest in these ridiculous domains.

Re:As a European I hate to say it... (2, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | about 8 years ago | (#15100201)

Markets NEED to be unregulated

It is "unregulated" because there probably are no meaningful consequences to gaming the system. Today's lesson:

1. It's only wrong if someone gets caught.
2. If they get caught, then so what? They've got more domain names than the next guy so they win.
3. The person with most gold rules.

This highlights one of the consequences of a capitalist society. Now, you may say, "So what! At least I get a chance in a capitalist society because there's more opportunity"

But competition is not welcome in a capitalist system. Mature markets evolve to a duopoly/monopoly because the market winners actively supress competition and thereby foster inefficient markets. Thus inspiring regulations to prevent the formation of monopolies.

I urge you to challenge your own assumptions about "free markets." There's lots of meaningful opinions on both sides. You need to know both.

Re:As a European I hate to say it... (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | about 8 years ago | (#15100491)

But competition is not welcome in a capitalist system. Mature markets evolve to a duopoly/monopoly because the market winners actively supress competition and thereby foster inefficient markets.

True. Until they reach such dimensions and become so slow and bloated (can a company be "bloated"?) that their competitors can leverage their agility and quickness-to-market (yay marketspeech) to gain more power and little by little displace them. That's why I say an unregulated market is a self-regulating market. And a healthy one.
I assure you I consider my own opinions critically and I have pondered over the various different systems and options: I know some, though obviously not all of them. And I still see that unregulated markets are the best ones.

Re:As a European I hate to say it... (4, Insightful)

ktappe (747125) | about 8 years ago | (#15100249)

this is what happens when you regulate a market.
No, it's what happens when you claim you've regulated a market so all the law-abiding citizens believe you, but the criminals figure out that you've really done little-to-no regulation at all and create anarchy.

-Kurt

As an Westerner I hate to say it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100288)

... but that is what European's say when they have no idea what constitutes regulation ;)

Rushes only happen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100050)

...when there is a scarcity of the resource in question. While there may have been a technical reason why TLDs should be limitted early in the internet's development, that reason has long since passed. We should have thousands of TLDs at this point. Not that it will ever happen as long as ICANN is in charge, since they rightly believe that increasing the number of TLDs will decrease their own influence.

OK, I'll bite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100066)

Who is "company X" and how does Parsons know that company is responsible for cheating? If he can prove the claim, then why coyly omit the name? The truth is the ultimate defense against libel/slander.

In other news... (3, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | about 8 years ago | (#15100073)

The TLD hijacking phenomenon that's a decade old profitable business model didn't suddenly stop that day. :-p

Who cares? (0, Flamebait)

GeorgeMcBay (106610) | about 8 years ago | (#15100075)

Who really cares about getting EU addresses anyway? I guess asking that makes me sound like an isolated bumpkin American, but honestly the same goes for .us and pretty much any other TLD that isn't .com. Do companies really stand to make megamillions selling non-.com addresses? I just don't see it.

Re:Who cares? (4, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | about 8 years ago | (#15100121)

Who really cares about getting EU addresses anyway? I guess asking that makes me sound like an isolated bumpkin American, but honestly the same goes for .us and pretty much any other TLD that isn't .com. Do companies really stand to make megamillions selling non-.com addresses? I just don't see it.

Halfway through the initial registration, the .eu domain became the third largest, behind .com and .uk. They have probably passed .uk by now. It is not shaping up to be one of those ignored TLDs. So, yes a lot of people care about it and yes big money is involved.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Capitalisten (102859) | about 8 years ago | (#15100202)

It's because you ARE an isolated bumpkin American! :)

I work for a Danish webhosting company and we have very few customers that run their website off a .com/.net/.whatever while almost everybody run a .dk domain as their main domain. Some have secured the .com counterpart and use it as a parked domain but it's ususally just companies that do business internationally.

So yes - local tld's are just as important to companies all over the world as .com is to US-based companies and believe me, there is some neat amounts of money involved when trading some domains. No, we're not talking sex.com amounts of money but still...

Euro-zone is a big market (bigger than US?) (3, Insightful)

fantomas (94850) | about 8 years ago | (#15100203)

I don't have the figures (any economists please? google?) but I am pretty sure that the Euro-zone of countries is now similar to North America in its size as a market for products. I'm pretty sure that countries in the Euro-zone often have similar product specifications due to common laws as well, so yup, I'd say branding your product as .eu is as important as a .com.

I'm in the UK and I purposely *avoid* .com products, hey, I don't want to pay for a company to ship a paperback 3000 miles from the USA, I'd prefer them to post it from somewhere in the EU and charge me that instead (pretty well the same rate as from the UK). Don't have to pay import taxes either...

Re:Euro-zone is a big market (bigger than US?) (1)

jaywee (542660) | about 8 years ago | (#15100241)

Actually, this is sometimes rather odd - shipping from amazon.com to Czech Republic (where I live) is actually cheaper than from amazon.co.uk ...

Re:Who cares? (2, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | about 8 years ago | (#15100229)

I'm pretty sure that spammers do as it's yet another TLD that is almost guaranteed to be completely absent from most major domain name based blocklists. Businesses will want their .EU domain to protect their brandnames, but never actually use them for anything, a few Europhiles and political entities will want one to fly the EU flag. Once it becomes a free-for-all though, I fully expect the bulk registration of disposable domain names and mass spamming to be begin turning it all to crap, just like happened with the .INFO domain.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100345)

I have a small company, serving other businesses in the EU, that uses a single English word as its name. I've never heard of another European company using this name, and yet the .com, .co.uk etc are already taken.

We currently use wordxxxxxxxx.com, where the 'x's identify what market we are in, but it would have been nice to have word.eu instead - it's more representative of our business, more easily identifiable to our clients, and quicker to type with less chance of a typo.

Unfortunately, it seems somebody has already taken word.eu, and it's a "holding" company in a non-English-speaking country. Figures.

Re:Who cares? (1)

debest (471937) | about 8 years ago | (#15100369)

I've never really understood what's holding up the implementation of .us in the States. Here in Canada, there are a tremendous number of sites that are .ca (some the Canadian sites of a large multinational, others wholly Canadian sites), and there is NO negative stigma atached to a site in the .ca domain. Yes, it's aimed at Canadians: aren't there a great number of American sites aimed at Americans? .com is so over-utilized, you've go to register a 20-character domain to have anything remotely resembling your site's content or image. If you were to have .us opened up for registration, the confusion time and inferiority complex about the TLD would be minimal and fade quickly.

One More Example... (1)

rueger (210566) | about 8 years ago | (#15100082)

... why the existing domain registration process doesn't work.
Although it seems just as likely that European companies would scam the system as American ones.

Sooner or later some kind of crisis will happen that will bring about changes to the way that domain names are handled. As noted [yafla.com], three and four letter TLD names are already completely gone, with any reasonable new domain name likely already registered to a legitimate user, or to one of those idiot companies that "hold" names waiting for the highest bidder.

Changes are coming folks.

But what is it? (1)

Life700MB (930032) | about 8 years ago | (#15100085)


One thing that is not very clear to me is what kind of domains are them, as I've read in newspapers this two variants, and related webs don't make it clear:

* www.domain.country.eu (crap!)
* www.domain.eu (a lot more interesting).

Wich is the correct?


--
Superb hosting [tinyurl.com] 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

Americans Back Off (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100092)

I got my .eu domains within 1 hour after application!

What's your problem guys? Oh wait, I know you are American pussies rigth?

This could be a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100097)

Bob asserts that hundreds of these new 'registrars' are actually fake fronts for a big name US company.

If they are fronts for Apple or Google, I'd say this is a good thing.

Regulation is never fair (0)

dada21 (163177) | about 8 years ago | (#15100123)

Fair means equitable to all parties involved -- a level entry situation. The EU domain name situation is far from fair, with the regulations involved in the landrush inequitable because there were no market provisions for equality (instead the governing body tried to make equitable provisions that had nothing to do with the market).

You want fair? Auction them off. Let anyone jump on a domain name, but leave that domain open to auction for 7 days. Of course you'll have "trademark" holders who think they own words (legally, they do), which will destroy the market's provision for giving the seller of a domain name the best price that the market will bear. If McDonalds.eu could sell to John McDonald and he was willing to pay a billion euros for it, why shouldn't he?

We should have seen this coming -- how can anything be fair when the rules are fixed, and the law of supply and demand isn't allowed to govern.

Re:Regulation is never fair (1)

tinkerghost (944862) | about 8 years ago | (#15100298)

LOL, Check UK court cases
IIRC Lord McDonald of McDonald owns the McDonald name and all derivatives of it in the UK. I believe that got settled when McD's went after some small time eatery & the Lord stepped in and told them to piss off.
Could be interesting seeing McDonald (member of EU) vs. McDonald (US company) in that name grab.

Consider the source... (4, Insightful)

Cherita Chen (936355) | about 8 years ago | (#15100140)

Has anyone stopped to consider the source? Bob Parsons is notorious for his whining... Anyone who takes a gander at his blog every now and then is privy to the ex-Marine, poor-boy-done-good, megalomaniac either tooting his own horn, or complaining about the business practices of his competitors. Gimme-a-big-fat-Break!

Why not auction them off? (5, Insightful)

fortinbras47 (457756) | about 8 years ago | (#15100168)

I think the basic issue is that price of a domain name is significantly below the market value. As I understand it, there are therefore huge incentives for Mr.DomainCamper to try to grab coke.eu for $10 and try to resell it to Coca Cola for $10 billion. There are also huge incentives for Coca Cola to create their own registrar company and get coke.eu before Mr.DomainCamper does. (btw, I know nothing about coke.eu, I picked it at random.)

A more efficient way to initially allocate major domain names might be to run an auction.

Currently, domain names are allocated according to the law of capture. He/she who first claims the domain name and pays a nominal fee has rights to the name. It IS like a land grab where you can acquire the rights to land by just showing up, except it's even worse because to grab land in the American West you generally had to show up and use it.

My rough idea:
(1) Auction period will last one month
(2) At the end of the auction period, domain names that were bid on will go to the highest bidder. (As long as bid is above the minimum bid.) (3) After the auction ends, domain names will be allocated under the old retarded process

This doesn't solve all domain name problems, but it would get popular domain names to the people/companies that value the name the most.

Re:Why not auction them off? (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | about 8 years ago | (#15100269)

Or a hoard of wealthy investors and Ebay bidsnipers will win 95% of the auctions and buy a chunk of the internet to sell as they see fit.

Re:Why not auction them off? (3, Insightful)

bheer (633842) | about 8 years ago | (#15100295)

The problem with your appeoach is that it makes the Internet a haven for those with money. Sure, money talks on the net, but much less than in any other medium -- which is why Amnesty, Greenpeace, DemocracyUnderground etc find it most convenient to disseminate their message online.

If we had a domain name auction system, how'd you like to bet the government of China would snap up rights to amnesty.org?

 

wow! (2, Interesting)

cashman73 (855518) | about 8 years ago | (#15100177)

Wow! According to whois.eu [whois.eu], there's been 281 applications received for sex.eu ! 71 applications for porn.eu .

This, of course, should surprise no one.

Auction (2, Interesting)

ortcutt (711694) | about 8 years ago | (#15100180)

Governments auction off radio spectrum. There should be auctions for domain names with the money going into the public coffers, rather than being free money for registrars.

Re:Auction (1)

slashdot.org (321932) | about 8 years ago | (#15100292)

Governments auction off radio spectrum. There should be auctions for domain names with the money going into the public coffers, rather than being free money for registrars.

Yeah, so no individual will be able to afford a 4 letter domain...

The Problem with Queuing (3, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 8 years ago | (#15100194)

There seems to be a special place in the liberal heart for the notion of queues and everyone lining up for their "fair share" of whatever is being doled out. It sounds like a good idea in principle, but in practice this type of scheme inevitably falls victim to the realities of human nature. I remember experiencing something like this first hand when the housing authority at my university decided that a limited number of subsidized campus housing units would be doled out based upon a queue system. Of course, they thought that everyone would be nice and orderly, but in practice people camped outside the office for days before the rush began with one person "holding" spaces for twenty of his friends and people buying and selling places in line. They opened the process at midnight and everyone rushed the doors. The campus police were overwhelmed and they were lucky that there wasn't a riot. The point of all this is that the market has demonstrated time and again that queuing and rationing ultimately fail to satisfy anyone as somebody will always get the short end of the stick even though they would have paid more for item x than item y. Instead of trying to enforce some silly queuing system where people can and will find ways to cheat why did they not have an auction instead? Obviously some names like sex.eu are going to be worth hell of a lot more than blog.eu so why not let competing bidders determine exactly how much more? They could have used the proceeds to create a holding company for long term management of the domain and offer whatever names that were left at a fixed price. The conservative Europeans should have known better than to try and create a non-price based system that could not be abused by those crafty American companies and their high priced consultants.

Re:The Problem with Queuing (3, Insightful)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 8 years ago | (#15100316)

Your post is one incredible troll. Insightful! Please.

If had bothered to come down from your ivory tower and read the blog, you would understand the problem was bogus registrars appearing at the last minute with many being THE SAME COMPANY! They were bogus because they were not real registrars but rather companies squating on a domain name. If the EURID had bothered to do a background check on these companies, they could have prevented the abuse of the system. EURID can still fix the problem but they show no willingness to do so.

Re:The Problem with Queuing (2, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 8 years ago | (#15100377)

They were bogus because they were not real registrars but rather companies squating on a domain name.

The auction system solves this problem because in the end somebody has to pay from a verified line of credit. Thus, it doesn't matter how many proxies somebody uses because they still have to cough up the money when the hammer falls. The post was made out of frustration because people keep trying the same things that always fail and wonder why they fail. There is no suggestion of ivory tower here...auctions can and do solve these types of problems every day in the real world without resorting to some complex and ultimately futile non-money based system that is proof against all cheating.

Re:The Problem with Queuing (2, Funny)

nagora (177841) | about 8 years ago | (#15100323)

with one person "holding" spaces for twenty of his friends

Try that in a queue in Northern Ireland and you'll have one person holding twenty teeth in their hands, and rightly so.

TWW

At 10 grand a pop... (1)

IHawkMike (564552) | about 8 years ago | (#15100200)

So did Company X have to pay $10,000 for each bogus registrar they created? If so, isn't there some risk of them actually losing money on this scam? I realize some of these domain names will go for more than $10,000 a piece, but wouln't it be funny if the whole .eu TLD turns out to be a flop and Company X loses a ton of money on the deal. Assuming they registered 300 phantom registrars, that's $3 million in domain names they need to sell, not counting the $12.50 per name. I realize they probably will recoup tenfold and it's still pretty shady, but it seems to me there is still some risk for them.
 
Although upon re-reading the blog entry, it says a "deposit" of $10,000, which suggests to me that the $12.50 registration fees come out of this deposit. Can anyone clarify this?

Unfair? (5, Funny)

mattwarden (699984) | about 8 years ago | (#15100224)

Unfair?

* People set up process that my 5-year old niece would have realized wouldn't work.
* Process doesn't work.

Seems pretty fair to me.

May I Be The First To Say... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100233)

www.mondi.eu

Bob Stop Whining, GoDaddy is equally bad. (1)

cpatil (955342) | about 8 years ago | (#15100285)

Bob is not a man whom you can rely on. Just because he ain't getting nothing he is whining like a kid. Bob, your organisation enforces a law which I haven't seen into enforcement by any other registrar. As quoted by your office,
...As you are aware, we have modified our transfer-away policy to prevent transfer if registration contact information has changed within 60 days of the request...
Noah Plumb
Office of the President
President@GoDaddy.com

Bob's game plan, start being good with customers initially and once the business grows he is worse than NETSOL.

List of registrars shows the phantoms (2, Interesting)

tigertiger (580064) | about 8 years ago | (#15100318)

The list of registrars [eurid.eu] is actually available only, and it is pretty obvious that the system is being played by some companies - you can usually tell from the address who they are... United Domains of Starnberg, Germany, e.g. is using plant names ( peach-europe Ltd ).

Since this is a pretty obvious process, I guess it amounts to every registrar choosing how many chances in the landrush it wants to pay for... So what? Vetting individual registrars anyway would have been an messy procedure, the EU registry makes some money from the bogus registrations, and nobody knows if anyone will ever pay any sizable amount for a .eu domain.

Re:List of registrars shows the phantoms (1)

MoriaOrc (822758) | about 8 years ago | (#15100482)

My personal favorites so far from looking at the list (favoritism being a function of how obvious it is that they're duplicates) are the "Domain Robot * Ltd" and the big block of "* LLC" registered to someone in New York (what? isn't this supposed to be the EU domain?). The last half is mostly from New York, too. I can't figure out if this is because alot of companies decided to register from New York (any reason for this?) or one guy just randomly generated alot of information (many of them have different addresses/phone numbers).

Can't they at least try to make it a little less obvious, though?

Want to see the results? (1)

955301 (209856) | about 8 years ago | (#15100342)


A quick google search on

site:.eu

yields the following:
27 parked by DomainMonster
30 go to NetNames
28 to some unknown with the phrase "dominio parcheggiato" in it. ...

at 57,700 sites thus far, and an estimate 30 sites per registrars, it works out to about 1900 registrars as he suggests. Thats in line with the ~1200 he mentions in the article.

So google seems to agree with his article if the results are indicative of the true averages.

That's a shame. Hey Europe, welcome to the new .com!

so, welcome to the .com nightmare...

Funny, the big name companies spelled it out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15100390)

Funny, the big name companies spelled it out before the land rush occured. And it is more funny the way they did it - by FUD.

Register.com sent out emails that said they had just found out some other compainies put in registration claims at the last moment and threatened to have placeholders for 800,000 tLDs. They were looking to spread panic by suggesting that some unknown company would steal away your identity unless you went with them.

Of course this is all crap.

One: They probably spent some bucks to make aliases of register.com to spread their choices out.
Two: They probably got the bigger companies to shell out more to have the priviledge of being higher on the draft pcik list than other clients.
Three: .EU jurisdiction will probably be settled in the EU court system. Any company outside the nation boundaries of the EU will lose out to a national. (Read US will lose out on squatting or brand relations)

So -whine and bitch. Vendors will look at how well you can place their Domain in the EU and will go with someone else, even though they broke the rules, just because they got the job done.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...