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!

cancel ×

137 comments

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

KISS (5, Funny)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233332)

Good.

(all other posts after this are either wrong or repeating)

Re:KISS (5, Funny)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233370)

Actually, IMO, KISS was highly overrated. Gene Simmons is a marketing genius, though.

Re:KISS (1)

Fifty Points (878668) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234852)

Actually, if you're referring to him outside of his actual performance, you might use his real name, Chaim Witz [wikipedia.org] .

Marketing genius indeed!

Re:KISS (1, Funny)

Pikoro (844299) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233424)

Mod parent up and lock comments on this story. Enough said...

FIRE (1, Funny)

wezeldog (982156) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233482)

Bad!

Re:KISS (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233542)

At the same meeting they also discussed Network Solutions' front running but took no action on it.

You think anybody who doesn't find this "good" is wrong?

Re:KISS (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22233608)

We could also add a "Bad" comment to appease the contrarians, and then this story would only need two comments.

Re:KISS (1)

Torvaun (1040898) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234954)

That doesn't matter now, because they'll stop. Like hell they're going to automate a process that costs money and isn't easily reversible.

Overall a great decision, but . . . (3, Interesting)

MisterSquid (231834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234582)

Along with many others, I deplored Network Solutions' preemptive domain registration which took advantage of domain tasting. However as a former beneficiary of the present domain tasting policy, I can see at least one benefit to consumers (and businesses) that gets overlooked because of the audacity of Network Solutions' behavior.

About a year ago I registered a domain that had a transliteration of a foreign word. I discovered, within a few hours, that my transliteration was not the preferred spelling (for example, "perogi" as opposed to the preferred "pirogi"). I asked my registrar to refund my money for the first domain and registered the domain with the preferred spelling.

Honest mistake and no one was harmed in the process of deleting the undesired domain. Sure, I could have researched that transliterated word before registration but it simply did not occur to me that a spelling which in my day (yeah, I'm over 40) was correct would have been superseded. (Sort of like finding out BBQ is actually spelled "barbecue".)

Re:Overall a great decision, but . . . (5, Insightful)

SnapShot (171582) | more than 6 years ago | (#22235134)

I understand your anecdote, but considering that a domain name only costs $9 I'm still on the side of banning the practice.

ICANN says it pretty eloquently:

Whereas, it is apparent that the AGP is being used for purposes for which it
was not intended;

Whereas, abuse of the AGP is, in the opinion of the majority of respondents
whose statements were collected by the GNSO Ad Hoc Group on Domain Name
Tasting (4 October 2007 report), producing disadvantages in the form of
consumer confusion and potential fraud that outweigh the benefits of the
AGP;


In other words, your experience has become the exception (by a factor of millions) not the rule and a few bad apples have ruined it for the rest of us.

Re:Overall a great decision, but . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22235320)

It would have been better if you'd done the research beforehand, or sucked it up and accepted the minor loss of having to buy a second domain. The cost of a domain is low enough that protection against typos and the like just aren't needed.

Re:Overall a great decision, but . . . (2, Informative)

racyrefinedraj (981243) | more than 6 years ago | (#22235374)

Either we are talking about different "Pirogis," or you still don't have the right transliteration: Pierogi [wikipedia.org] Of course, the article does mention that you've got options: "(also perogi, perogy, pirohi, piroghi, pirogi, pirogen, piroshke or pyrohy)"

Re:Overall a great decision, but . . . (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#22236100)

To me tasting is a relic of a past time, specifcally when registering a domain was a significant expenditure of time and money.

Now that domains are cheap and easy, there is no reason to have a trail period. It is like having a trial period box of candy or some other trivial consumable. Sure, if the product is defective the retailer will take it back, but otherwise you made the choice, you keep the product. This kind of return policy is disruptive to consumers and retailers.

Speaking directly to your case, I might have kept both domain, but have the less dominant redirect to the domain of the current preferred spelling. This way one get the old people, at a nearly insignificant marginal cost.

Network Solutions (4, Interesting)

Kagura (843695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233360)

Network Solutions recently released a comment on their supposedly unscrupulous business practices [circleid.com] . They claim that their automatic registration of domain names that were searched for was an effort to stem the problem of domain tasters. I have a hard time believing that.

Re:Network Solutions (5, Insightful)

tritonman (998572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233392)

Yea I think they are full of crap. I tried this myself, I searched on network solutions for some random domain name like kljihsd2342.com, it said it was available, then I decided that I would maybe go with register.com (we do have freedom of choice right?) and it said the domain was unavailable, it was registered by network solutions. This is most certainly abuse of power.

Re:Network Solutions (4, Insightful)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233464)

So the solution is simply to do your searches on register.com if you're going to buy from them, and not to go to networksolutions.com at all.

Although: if ICANN eliminate the free tasting period, so that it costs network solutions some money for each domain they "protect from domain tasters" in this way, it would surely be fun to go to networksolutions.com and do a few hundred more searches for random domain names.

Re:Network Solutions (2, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233632)

Well what if you don't intend to register but just want to see if the domain is available. Without restrictions against the likes of NetworkSolutions, Register.com could do the exact same thing, and the whole registration process would go downhill really fast. Couldn't you just do a DNS request to see if a domain is taken? Is it a requirement that if you have registered a domain, to have a DNS server?

Re:Network Solutions (2, Interesting)

hankwang (413283) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233698)

Couldn't you just do a DNS request to see if a domain is taken?

Normally you use whois (which exists as a commandline tool), but you can also use DNS, for example

dig example.com (*ux)
nslookup -type=ns example.com (works with Windows)
Of course, you have to trust the organisation that's at the other end of your query. It is possible that some domain owners count DNS requests. There are fewer organisations that manage the Whois database.

Re:Network Solutions (3, Informative)

julesh (229690) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234360)

Couldn't you just do a DNS request to see if a domain is taken?

Some ISPs compile a database of DNS requests for non-existant domains and sell these to the people who put up those obnoxious advertising sites. Your lookup may trigger one of these companies to buy the domain.

Re:Network Solutions (1)

kayditty (641006) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234728)

You can do WHOIS from the command line (with whois, fwhois, or telnet 43). It seems they are not using domains checked this way for their "anti-domain tasting" practices. Yes, you can do a DNS request to see whether a record exists in the root-servers for a domain name. It is usually a requirement that you provide them with DNS servers when registering a domain name. However, under various circumstances, DNS records might not exist.

That's no matter. If a record for the domain does not exist, the root-server will return NXDOMAIN.

Re:Network Solutions (1)

RedHat Rocky (94208) | more than 6 years ago | (#22235812)

There is not, however, any policy in place to prevent this information (whois, root NS lookups) being used for tasting as well.

Better to just deal with tasting period rather than look for a technical workaround.

Re:Network Solutions (2, Insightful)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#22235400)

Couldn't you just do a DNS request to see if a domain is taken?

Yes. IIRC, Network Solutions would not snipe the results of whois lookups/DNS failed lookups of domains, only the domains that you searched for as the first step of registering it.

I actually see nothing wrong with letting a company reserve a domain for a short period of time to allow the transaction process to complete or allow the choice of several domains to be elevated. But 1 hour would work for that.

Wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22237004)

> Yes. IIRC, Network Solutions would not snipe the results of whois lookups/DNS failed lookups of domains, only the domains that you searched for as the first step of registering it.

Actually, they DID snipe the others, it just took a while longer before they went live, IIRC. I'm pretty sure I tested that exact thing (along with several others) when the story first came out.

That, or they really wanted domains like (and I don't remember exactly what I got them to taste) netsolisathievingscumbagregistrar.com or fjklsdfjsdhfisdhfosdhfpoisdhfpaidhfpoahdf.com ...

The interesting thing was that if you queried THEM it would still claim it was available, but once you checked with anyone else, it was not. And this was for domains where you were merely whoising them, NOT going through their website as if you planned to buy them.

Re:Network Solutions (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22236788)

"So the solution is simply to do your searches on register.com if you're going to buy from them, and not to go to networksolutions.com at all." Yeah, and if the clerk at circle K punched me in the gut and steals my wallet, the solution is to simply go to 711 instead. Or maybe I should call the authorities about the illegal behaviour of Circle K.

Re:Network Solutions (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22233470)

Now that is freaky.

networksolutionsuckhorsecocks.com is available.

Then I go to register.com and it isn't.

Crazy, crazy world...

Exploit the exploiters (2, Interesting)

Doctor O (549663) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234638)

I don't know US law, but I'm pretty sure this is illegal in one way or another.

If I were someone who loses a legitimate domain name I wanted to register to such fraud, I'd go to court and demonstrate how NSI systematically abuses its power of being able to register domains for free in order to force people to register domains through them. I'm sure even if it's not extortion, it's anti-competitive at least...

Re:Network Solutions (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 6 years ago | (#22235890)

I couldn't believe they'd be that audacious (I know, I know) and did an experiment with unrjdjtlasd.com -- sure enough, available from NS but not from register.com or godaddy.com.

Re:Network Solutions (1)

caramelcarrot (778148) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233600)

I expected that the domain saving thing was actually them holding the domain while a customer decided if they wanted to buy it nor not, so it couldn't be registered while they're still entering card details or whatever. It is a bit dodgy, though - were they actually putting adverts up on the domains?

Re:Network Solutions (0, Offtopic)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233620)

They claim that their automatic registration of domain names that were searched for was an effort to stem the problem of domain tasters.
My brothers doing bad, stole my mothers TV
Says she watches too much, it's just not healthy

Re:Network Solutions (0)

eat here_get gas (907110) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234098)

now your manhood is taken- your a maytag
spend the next 10 yrs as an undercover fag
being used and abused and served like hell
'til one day you were found dead in your cell.

Re:Network Solutions (1)

colourmyeyes (1028804) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234596)

Clever and apt.

Also, "All My Children" in the daytime, "Dallas" at night
Can't even see the game or the Sugar Ray fight.

Re:Network Solutions (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233670)

I think their solution amounts to, "If anyone's going to be making money off of domain tasting, it's us."

Re:Network Solutions (3, Informative)

morcego (260031) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233912)

Humm, please correct if I'm wrong, but doesn't getting rid of domain tasting pretty much stops NSI from doing this front running scheme ?

Re:Network Solutions (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 6 years ago | (#22237012)

MOD PARENT UP!

More to the point, as soon as there's no free taste capability, every domain they ninja on the basis of an availability query costs them money!.

Which means the automated query-NS-with-random-crap-domains that many folks suggested [slashdot.org] will actually hurt NS where they feel it: in the wallet.

I urge my fellow slashwarriors: keep up the automated random pointless availability queries. The moment NS can't abuse their position with impunity, they'll stop doing it or the slash-hordes zerging their WHOIS service will make them pay the price!

Re:Network Solutions (1)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234372)

You mean it's an effort to stem the problem of other domain tasters, not the domain taster called NSI.

that reminded me... (1)

DuctTape (101304) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234510)

That reminded me to go search about 50 domain names (all, um, formerly available) with Network Solutions so that they could taste some more.

I don't know why that makes me happy.

DT

Is this really about domain tasting (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233384)

Or domain kiting? In tasting, customers register the domain for 5 days and use that up and then let it expire. In kiting, they delete the domain before the grace period is up and then re-register for another 5 day grace for the same domain.

Re:Is this really about domain tasting (4, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233422)

I RTFA. Their main concern was Domain Tasting, but Domain Kiting would be attacked by the same action they took, so it doesn't matter.

Re:Is this really about domain tasting (4, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233566)

Well, of the two practices, kiting is perhaps the more harmful practice, since the lather, rinse, repeat cycle essentially allows people to skate on paying, but still holding onto the domain.

Maybe I'm not thinking like a domain squatter... (1)

TimeTraveler1884 (832874) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234054)

but $9.99/yr is not much. What's the point of going through all that trouble? Are the people who practice domain kitting registering thousands of domains this way?

Re:Maybe I'm not thinking like a domain squatter.. (1)

Calinous (985536) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234096)

It is by orders of magnitude more expensive than not paying anything

Re:Maybe I'm not thinking like a domain squatter.. (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234102)

Yes.

Re:Maybe I'm not thinking like a domain squatter.. (1)

robo_mojo (997193) | more than 6 years ago | (#22236776)

but $9.99/yr is not much. What's the point of going through all that trouble? Are the people who practice domain kitting registering thousands of domains this way?
It makes a very big difference when you're talking about someone kiting many hundreds or even thousands of domains.

Also I don't think it is much trouble for the kiters. I would imagine they have all sorts of automated tools to run the process of juggling that many names.

I would be glad if they remove the grace period.

Where's the tag? (4, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233406)

I expected to see a 'suddenoutbreakofcommonsense' tag on this one, but maybe I saw it before it had time to be tagged.

In this case, it doesn't seem to be a sudden outbreak, though... Reading the notes (yeah, I RTFA) I can see that with the possible exception of Bruce Tonkin (who dropped off the call because of possible conflict of interest, thus making him a good guy no matter his opinion on this matter) everyone agreed that any measure except removing of the Add Grace Period (AGP) would be ineffective and only cause other harm to the community.

It's also obvious from the notes that they've spent no little time thinking about this, and they had their arguments ready. And when talking was done, they were ready to do the right thing. All of them, unanimously.

It was unclear whether the 21-day period was in effect, though... They talked about having to notify the public of policy changes 21 days in advance or more. Even if it is, 3 weeks is pretty short.

Re:Where's the tag? (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233454)

For those that don't know, Bruce Tonkin holds shares in Melbourne IT, which is an ICANN-approved registrar. Hence his conflict of interest.

Re:Where's the tag? (1)

Calinous (985536) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234116)

Even if it is three weeks, or 21 working days (about a month), in the end after those 21 days and another 5, no domains would be registered for free

Finally! (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233426)

I always thought it was a bit of an obvious loop-hole. Good to see that Google's stance appears to have forced a good decision from ICANN.

I don't even know why they have that grace period. AFAIK .uk domains don't have one - every registrar I've bothered reading the FAQ for basically says "you typed it wrong? Then tough luck, we gave you an 'are you sure the details are right' page".

If only there was a way to cut down on pointlessly parked domains that turn up high in search results...

Impact on registrars like GoDaddy? (4, Interesting)

StringBlade (557322) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233624)

I wonder what impact this will have on registrars such as GoDaddy.com who (according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] ) have 55.1 million domain names registered a year of which 51.5 million are canceled and refunded just before the 5 day grace period.

While GoDaddy.com doesn't get to keep that money, it does generate a revenue flow. That is, GoDaddy.com must return the money, but there's no requirement to cut a check that day. It may be a week or three before GoDaddy.com has to cut a refund check. In the meantime they have money to work with much like banks do. Most businesses operate on revenue flow and not strictly the net balance they have available at any one time.

If ICANN drops this grace period and domain tasters drop away (possible if unlikely) that leaves GoDaddy.com with 51.5 million domains at $10 per domain (or $515 million) in revenue flow that just dried up. That's a lot of money to just disappear from your business finances.

IANAA, but I think that this decision will have the most impact on large registrars. Perhaps a one day grace period for people who honestly made a mistake would have been more appropriate. One day is not enough to get a domain properly "tasted" because it takes about that long for the DNS entry to propagate through the network, and by the time it was out the domain would either be permanent or gone.

Re:Impact on registrars like GoDaddy? (1, Insightful)

ps236 (965675) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233876)

Why have domain tasting at all?

How many people really make a mistake? If you buy something from your local shop and then decide you didn't want it after all, the shop has no obligation to give you your money back - especially if they suspect you have used it (eg if it's clothes, a camera etc)

A domain costs virtually nothing to register, and they're not vital for people to live. So, if you screw up and register the wrong domain, tough, it's your fault, not the registrar's, not the rest of the world's. You should have to pay for it.

If GoDaddy are helping spammers by giving them 51 million free domains to use in spam, then I have no sympathy with them!

Re:Impact on registrars like GoDaddy? (1)

STrinity (723872) | more than 6 years ago | (#22235734)

Domain tasting is for companies, so the marketing department can pick out a dozen potential domains and present them to the high muckety-mucks without worrying that someone else might come along and buy one.

Re:Impact on registrars like GoDaddy? (1, Insightful)

modecx (130548) | more than 6 years ago | (#22236372)

So? Let the company buy them for real. You're telling me that a company with an earnest marketing department, which might be trying as many a few dozen domain names can't afford to keep them for at least a year--at the pittance of $10 bucks a pop? Bullshit.

Re:Impact on registrars like GoDaddy? (1)

STrinity (723872) | more than 6 years ago | (#22236564)

Not can't. Don't want to. No company wants to spend one dollar more than necessary, which is why domain tasting was created.

Re:Impact on registrars like GoDaddy? (3, Insightful)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233978)

GoDaddy.com who (according to Wikipedia) have 55.1 million domain names registered a year of which 51.5 million are canceled and refunded

As you said, they can't do that any more so they'd have either 55 million domains registered with 0 cancels, or 3.5 million domains registered for legitimate reasons and 51.5 million domains that weren't registered because the registeree couldn't get a temporary freebie.

If ICANN drops this grace period and domain tasters drop away (possible if unlikely) that leaves GoDaddy.com with 51.5 million domains at $10 per domain (or $515 million) in revenue flow that just dried up. That's a lot of money to just disappear from your business finances.

It's also a lot of revenue to be relying on when a good proportion of it will be from suspect activities (spammers/squatters) who could be restricted by decisions such as this at any moment.

At the end of the day if GoDaddy vanishes then it's no big loss. All the smaller registrars will survive without the 'ill gotten gains' money and registrars will continue. It happens with .uk domains, so it can happen with .coms. NIC.uk's FAQ page [www.nic.uk] doesn't even have any reference to returning a domain.

Re:Impact on registrars like GoDaddy? (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234662)

Well if GoDaddy Disappears because of this, I'll have to find another Registar for the next 10 years as I just renewed mine with them.

Re:Impact on registrars like GoDaddy? (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234772)

Most registrars (all?) allow you to migrate domains and carry over your purchased time. For instance, if you renew slashdot.org through Moniker from GoDaddy and your GoDaddy domain expires on 2010-01-01, your new domain under Moniker would expire 2011-01-01.

Re:Impact on registrars like GoDaddy? (1, Insightful)

jafiwam (310805) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234192)

In other words, most of their registrations comes from SCAMMING, and if not illegal but unethical activities.

And you want me to have SYMPATHY for them?

How bout this, fuck you, and fuck GoDaddy. The only thing they ever did right was hire that chick with the big tits for the SuperBowl commercials.

Re:Impact on registrars like GoDaddy? (1)

Teflon_Jeff (1221290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22235452)

I would guess we're going to see the cost of domain registration rising, with less ease.

Re:Impact on registrars like GoDaddy? (1)

esper (11644) | more than 6 years ago | (#22235856)

Everyone around here seems to agree that we need to fix broken copyright laws and, if fixing the rules ruins the RIAA/MPAA's business model, then that's their problem for clinging to a model which depends on those broken laws.

Seems to me that the exact same argument should apply here. If ICANN does something to put a stop to domain tasting/kiting, then that's a good thing for the net as a whole and if GoDaddy can't update their business model to handle the change, well, then I guess they can join the buggy-whip makers.

Re:Impact on registrars like GoDaddy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22236624)

If ICANN drops this grace period and domain tasters drop away (possible if unlikely) that leaves GoDaddy.com with 51.5 million domains at $10 per domain (or $515 million) in revenue flow that just dried up. That's a lot of money to just disappear from your business finances.

It's not really as much as you make it sound like.

Basically, that $515M/year amounts to having about $1.4M in "float" available to them on any given day. So, that's like having a $1.4M interest-free loan. Even making 100%/year on that money (which would be tough in this investing climate) would only amount to $1.4M more per year in their "income".

So, I doubt this will impact their bottom line more than $3M/year. That still might be a lot of money, but with the $36M revenue they make per year on "permanant" domains, plus whatever they make from hosting, SSL certs, etc., I'd guess it isn't enough for them to worry about, although it does cover their SuperBowl commercial.

They could deal with an actual problem instead... (4, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233436)

Is domain tasting really the most important problem that ICANN could sink its teeth into?

I say no.

ICANN has the role of accreditation of domain name registrars themselves (particularly for .com, .net, .org, .info domains). But yet they chose to remain toothless in all but the most very extreme cases of bad registrar services.

Bad registrars, such as pacnames.com, yesnic.com, and more recently mouzz.com, are willing partners in the international spamming epidemic. They have or still do sell domains to computer criminals, willingly accepting bogus data from these criminals in exchange for a kickback.

If ICANN really wants to make a positive difference on the internet, they need to flex their muscle and make use of their ability to un-accredit bad registrars. Why they continue to neglect the opportunity to do so is beyond me.

Re:They could deal with an actual problem instead. (3, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233556)

Why they continue to neglect the opportunity to do so is beyond me.
Well, as they always say, follow the money.

If pacnames, yesnic and mouzz are getting kickbacks from the criminals, maybe they are sending a cut to ICANN.

Re:They could deal with an actual problem instead. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234248)

If pacnames, yesnic and mouzz are getting kickbacks from the criminals, maybe they are sending a cut to ICANN.

That is an interesting question to raise. Honestly, I have always hoped that the problem with ICANN was due to incompetence rather than corruption.

Frankly, the more cynical side of me should have considered that possibility long ago. For some reason the optimist was in charge of that decision instead...

And on a side note, I can't help but wonder who the wise-ass is that modded your post "funny". If I had mod points today (and wasn't posting in this thread already) I'd have given it "insightful".

Re:They could deal with an actual problem instead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22234548)

killing a botched mod

Re:They could deal with an actual problem instead. (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234398)

Do any registrars check any data you give them that is not required to process your payment? As far as I know, none of them do criminal back ground checks, or require your information to be accurate.

Re:They could deal with an actual problem instead. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234586)

Do any registrars check any data you give them that is not required to process your payment? As far as I know, none of them do criminal back ground checks, or require your information to be accurate.

Well, ICANN does require that registrars maintain accurate WHOIS data so that the domain owners can be contacted.

Payment processing is an interesting question in and of itself, as well. I would suspect that someone with extensive criminal connections (such as Leo Kuvayev) probably wouldn't have much difficulty getting credit cards that correspond to any name and location he likes. And if that is how we wanted to make his payment, then it would be easy to skate by on just enough data to process the payment.

And I would suspect that few if any registrars would bother doing any kind of background checks on their customers. It would probably cost them more than the fee they charge for registration, and I wouldn't expect them to be willing to take in that kind of loss.

However, some registrars are selling domains to names that have been documented for years to be associated with criminal spamming enterprises. These registrars are simply negligent at best, or criminal co-conspirators at worst. They know that their customers are associated with crime, yet they opt to do nothing.

And of course, the registrar could do something about if they really wanted to. All they have to do it change the DNS record for the spamvertised domain to something that either doesn't resolve at all, or won't resolve the domain in question. With that done, new requests to the domain will never get anywhere, as they won't be able to resolve the domain to an IP address.

Re:They could deal with an actual problem instead. (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234838)

Is there a newsletter the registrar's get every moth with names of know criminals? I don't know who they would get this information. I'm sure its out there but how easy is it to collect all of this information?

Plus if you do have this list of known criminals that should not be able to register domain names, how do you allow someone else with a similar name to? First and Last Name combo's are not unique. Just take a look at all of the problems we've had with false positives for the No fly list. If I was on that jury that was trying to convict the registrar of negligence, I'd need to see some more direct evidence showing that it was practical for them to screen criminals, and that it was part of their responsibilities.

Re:They could deal with an actual problem instead. (2, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#22235048)

I don't know who they would get this information.

That is a valid point, certainly. However, for many of the criminals, there are some obvious patterns involved. In particular, the criminals generally purchase several dozen (or more?) domains in a single day. If you are aware of a good reason why a legitimate business or individual would want to do such a thing, I'm interested in hearing it.

Second, many of these criminals do keep the same name and registration data as they move from one registrar to another. For example, "Leo Kuvayev" has been using the alias "Alex Rodrigez" (note the spelling) for several years now. And over the past three registrars, he as always claimed to live in Lappeenranta, Finland.

So if the registrar started by taking notice of the red flag that should come up when someone registers a large number of domains with very different names, and then they took 5 seconds to do a google search on the contact data, they'd see that they are selling to a known criminal.

If I was on that jury that was trying to convict the registrar of negligence, I'd need to see some more direct evidence showing that it was practical for them to screen criminals, and that it was part of their responsibilities.

ICANN does state that the registrars are obligated to keep valid WHOIS records [internic.net] on the domains they sell. And it really isn't that hard for them to check against publicly available data on their customers when they get unusual requests.

I'm even willing to concede that they shouldn't be expected to check every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Jane that buys a domain. When I've checked the WHOIS records of the spamvertised domains that I see, I would say that over 80% of spamvertised domains are registered to less than 5% of all spamvertised domain registrants, and through less than 2% of all accredited registrars. If the registrars were at least held accountable to check the data on their customers that make unusually large purchases, we could do a lot to stem the current problem.

Re:They could deal with an actual problem instead. (1)

kidphoton (575170) | more than 6 years ago | (#22236932)

That is a valid point, certainly. However, for many of the criminals, there are some obvious patterns involved. In particular, the criminals generally purchase several dozen (or more?) domains in a single day. If you are aware of a good reason why a legitimate business or individual would want to do such a thing, I'm interested in hearing it.

WTF? Because they believe those domains are valuable in and of themselves? Picking up the leftover crumbs in the domain investment world? This sounds just like the argument against P2P technology: "We don't do it, therefore it's probably criminal."

Re:They could deal with an actual problem instead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22236976)

In particular, the criminals generally purchase several dozen (or more?) domains in a single day. If you are aware of a good reason why a legitimate business or individual would want to do such a thing, I'm interested in hearing it.

We often purchased that many domains in a single day at my old company. We were a small hosting company, so we weren't our own registrar, and had to us an actual registrar for the domains that our clients wanted registered.

We often batched up the registrations into a few groups a day, because the process wasn't completely automated (partially because we weren't a generic hosting company, but rather a provider of both hosting and content creation). Also, with many of our clients wanting .com, .net, .info, .us, etc., and some wanting .tv and other lesser TLDs, a single site could end up requiring 8-10 domains being registered.

Re:They could deal with an actual problem instead. (1)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234690)

Given that virtually all domain registrations are instant, I'd say no. The only exception I'm aware of is .travel, which is a real pain in the arse to register under.

The .au space is pretty tightly governed. For example, for a .com.au you need to be an Australian registered business and provide your Australian Business Number or similar identification; and the domain name needs to either be close or exact match for your business name or "substantially related".

I'm pretty sure it used to be that registrations were vetted by humans in order to ensure the information you provided was accurate, and there was some delay between submitting your registration and actually getting the domain. I guess that doesn't scale so well because now .au domains are instantly registered just like .com and so on. The rules still apply, but it's only there so people can challenge registrations. This does function as a good disincentive for abusing the DNS though; if you do something dodgy enough to get someone's attention, they can complain to auDA and if your registration info is invalid / bogus, you can lose your domain and your money. At least in theory.

Re:They could deal with an actual problem instead. (2, Interesting)

gmack (197796) | more than 6 years ago | (#22235060)

The downside to this is that .com needs to be international and some countries have pretty strange looking addresses. I had a customer have his domain disabled every year when someone would look at the address (roughly translated as three houses over from the post office) and disable the domain for having a fake address even though the customer was getting mail at that address.

Fantastic (2, Interesting)

ps236 (965675) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233442)

Now, we just need all the rest of the ccTLD registries to do the same, and spammers' lives will get that little bit harder.

What is interesting to me... (5, Insightful)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233468)

Is the fact that last night I was searching for a sprayfoam insulation company in maryland (using google), and the very first link that came up, was a domain taster domain registered 3 days prior to yesterday, that only had ads and click through sites on it...

It was most annoying, but the fact it came up as the first link, means google really should do soemthing about sites abusing the ranking systems and not just people abusing the adsense program.

Re:What is interesting to me... (1)

crow (16139) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233582)

Did you look up the domain registration? It might not be a tasting site. If they sold enough ads during the tasting period, then they would have registered it for real.

Re:What is interesting to me... (1)

esper (11644) | more than 6 years ago | (#22235942)

Considering the GP said it "was a domain taster domain registered 3 days prior to yesterday ", I'd say that, yes, he probably did look it up.

Re:What is interesting to me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22233814)

I agree. I think the quality of Google search results has degraded quite a bit in the last two years. But I think it has a lot more to do with these heavily "SEO"'d sites that artificially inflate their rankings than the domain tasters. I think Google will need to come back to their flagship product soon and start making improvements instead of running around trying to break into every other industry. I know they say they crack down on unscrupulous SEO'd and spam sites, but I see less and less of it.

ICANN stopping domain tasting is without a doubt a good thing which should have been done years ago. Why wait this long? I am surprised though that the Wikipedia entry for insulation or something like that didn't come up first. Seems like Google just lazily defaults to Wikipedia as either the #1 or #2 site in the rankings for everything these days.

cyber squatters (3, Insightful)

Tusaki (252769) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233550)

Its a good move, but im still waiting to see some more action against domain squatters. It is so infuriating to have a good idea for a website, only to have 99% of the possible/good domain names being taken and being part of some advertizement network. And I just refuse to pay them.

Ofcourse, in economic terms, it would probably be worth it in the long run if you have a very good idea to pay some extra for the better domain name. But its like paying for "protection" money because the alternative is worse...

Don't worry about the name (5, Insightful)

Comboman (895500) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233848)

It is so infuriating to have a good idea for a website, only to have 99% of the possible/good domain names being taken and being part of some advertizement network.

If you have a good idea for a website, pick a unique, memorable name, not an obvious one. Who's the number one auction site; auction.com or eBay? Who's the number one on-line bookseller; books.com or Amazon? What is an ebay anyway? What does a river in Brazil have to do with books? Nothing, it doesn't matter, most people are going to find your website through Google anyway rather than typing in a URL.

Re:Don't worry about the name (1)

Tusaki (252769) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234062)

Not that I've actually checked, but it wouldn't surprise me if nearly all phonetically good sounding memorable names are squatted. Especially when sites with names like "flickr" got popular and domain squatters started paying attention to sites like that.

And even if you dont "need" a good name, it shouldn't be possible to make money of it this way. Its just.. wrong... in my eyes. Making money of typos of people or making money of random dictionary words without content is evil.

Re:Don't worry about the name (1)

Fotherington (962601) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234166)

That's great advice if you're starting up a new business or service - but what if you're in an existing company? I work for the British Accreditation Council, a small educational sector charity founded in 1984 and based in the UK but working in Europe, the Gulf and India as well. We've got www.the-bac.org, but obviously I'd like us to use www.bac.org. It's currently a link farm, with a postal box address given in the WHOIS, and we'd need to go through the whole UDRP business to have a chance at it. I wouldn't mind if, for example, the Boston Arts College or the Battersea Arts Council had snapped it up; fair enough, it would serve a useful purpose. But a link farm? What possible value does that add to the Internet?

Re:Don't worry about the name (2, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234598)

If you can invent a name, that's great.

Often you can't. The product already exists, or the family isn't willing to change its surname just because of your domain-name suggestions.

For example, if I ever wanted to make my game (see below) commercial, then battlemaster.com would be the obvious website. Except that it's been an "under construction", "coming soon" links/ads/search site, and has been like that for years. There's even advertisement for the "free domain name registration" (aka tasting) in the fucking WHOIS entry.

So I'll have to change the name that all my players are used to, or use a not-so-obvious one instead, even though nobody is using the one that I could use.

And that's why, refering to another comment, just 3.5 mio. honest registrations a years is a log better than 51 mio. "tastings" and 3.5 mio. honest ones.

Re:Don't worry about the name (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 6 years ago | (#22235076)

If you have a good idea for a website, pick a unique, memorable name, not an obvious one.

Thanks, but not everyone is interested in creating a memorable brand. 'ebay' and 'amazon' are only memorable because they're famous. (More on this below.)

Nothing, it doesn't matter, most people are going to find your website through Google anyway rather than typing in a URL.

Have you actually tried that? Search google for 'auction' and auction.com comes up first, ebay second. Searching Google for 'books' leads to Google Book search, Barnes & Noble, the NY Times book reviews, fucking SALON.COM's books area (and by the way, salon.com has nothing to do with Salons, thankyouverymuch) and then Amazon. And then, ironically, books.ebay.com.

I would love to make a site with aspect ratio info. Rather than burying it in my own vaguely-related-to-imaging site, I'd like to go ahead and set up a domain just for that because it comes up a lot and I've got my own idea of how much information should be presented and organized, and just sending people to wikipedia or widescreen.org isn't as good. Aspectratio.com and .net are owned by the same company and are mostly blank. No problem, I'd rather have a .org because it's a free info site or hey, maybe even an .info. But noooo, both of those names are squatted. So, what--am I supposed to register something unique and memorable like carbonatedmilk.com [carbonatedmilk.com] (oops, taken) and use that for aspect ratio and just hope that I become famous enough that people start to equate carbonated milk with aspect ratio information?

There are two reasons to have sites:
1) You are a business and you want people to find you. This is where Google and the rest help. But an obvious, accurate domain name also helps here.
2) You have a site which you want to tell people about. The domain name should be memorable, yes, but being RELEVANT is a big help. Again, "name" being equal to "what it's about" is good.

The GP said he had a good idea for a SITE, not a BUSINESS. The Internet CAN be about information, you know. We're not all just whores.

So really, your advice is only useful in one of those two cases, and even then, only half the time.

And finally, it really comes down to the quality of your site. Are you suggesting that Amazon and eBay would not be successful if their URLs were book/books.com and auction/auctions.com?

So yeah, domain squatters in general suck ass, and registrars who take advantage of tasting are even more despicable. Just like corrupt cops--even more than plain citizens who are OK if they're mostly harmless, they're supposed to be part of the SOLUTION, not part of the PROBLEM.

In related news, just last night I moved four domains names from two different registrars based on stories about tasting that I read last week. (Plus one was up for renewal.) Sorry, assholes--too little, too late.

Re:Don't worry about the name (1)

Comboman (895500) | more than 6 years ago | (#22236390)

Thanks, but not everyone is interested in creating a memorable brand.

Yes you are, just because you're not selling something doesn't mean you're not "branding" your site. Otherwise you could save yourself some money and just use your IP address.

Have you actually tried that? Search google for 'auction' and auction.com comes up first, ebay second. Searching Google for 'books' leads to Google Book search, Barnes & Noble, the NY Times book reviews, fucking SALON.COM's books area (and by the way, salon.com has nothing to do with Salons, thankyouverymuch) and then Amazon. And then, ironically, books.ebay.com.

And your point is what exactly? You searched for "books" and you got sites about books. The more specific your search, the more relevant the results will be (another reason generic names like "books" are not a good "brand" name.

I would love to make a site with aspect ratio info. Rather than burying it in my own vaguely-related-to-imaging site, I'd like to go ahead and set up a domain just for that because it comes up a lot and I've got my own idea of how much information should be presented and organized, and just sending people to wikipedia or widescreen.org isn't as good. Aspectratio.com and .net are owned by the same company and are mostly blank. No problem, I'd rather have a .org because it's a free info site or hey, maybe even an .info. But noooo, both of those names are squatted. So, what--am I supposed to register something unique and memorable like carbonatedmilk.com (oops, taken) and use that for aspect ratio and just hope that I become famous enough that people start to equate carbonated milk with aspect ratio information?

If I were branding a site about aspect ratios, I might try something like asprat.org (available), but if you want to be boring aspectratios.org is also available (at least it was when I checked, so it's probably tasted now).

There are two reasons to have sites: 1) You are a business and you want people to find you. This is where Google and the rest help. But an obvious, accurate domain name also helps here. 2) You have a site which you want to tell people about. The domain name should be memorable, yes, but being RELEVANT is a big help. Again, "name" being equal to "what it's about" is good. The GP said he had a good idea for a SITE, not a BUSINESS. The Internet CAN be about information, you know. We're not all just whores. So really, your advice is only useful in one of those two cases, and even then, only half the time.

I disagree, my advice applies equally to informational sites (maybe more so). If you expect people to find your site by typing what they are looking for into the address box of their browser and adding .com or .org to the end, you are not going to get many visitors. They will find you by search engines and links from related pages and return visits come from bookmarks, none of which care what your URL is.

And finally, it really comes down to the quality of your site. Are you suggesting that Amazon and eBay would not be successful if their URLs were book/books.com and auction/auctions.com?

Frankly, yes I am. Generic names make poor brands. They're not memorable and they are difficult to defend legally against copy-cats (ibooks, mybooks, bookspace, etc). It's worth noting that Barnes & Noble owns books.com but they don't market it, they simply redirect it to their main site www.bn.com.

Wonka: That's juice. (-1, Offtopic)

LaTechTech (752269) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233588)

CHARLIE: What's it taste like?
VIOLET: Madness! It's tomato soup! It's hot and creamy. I can actually feel it running down my throat! It's delicious!
WONKA: Stop, don't . . .
CHARLIE: Why doesn't she listen to Mr. Wonka?
GRANDPA JOE: Because, Charlie, she's a nitwit.
VIOLET: (continuous) And every chew gets better and better! Mmmm...this sure is great soup. Hey, second course is coming up! Roast beef and a baked potato! Mmmm.
MR. BEAUREGARDE: With sour cream? (He laughs.) What's for dessert, baby?
VIOLET: Dessert? Here it comes. Blueberry pie and cream! It's the most marvelous blueberry pie that I've ever tasted!
CHARLIE: Look at her face!
MR. BEAUREGARDE: Holy Toledo, what's happening to your face?
VIOLET: Cool it, Dad! Lemme finish.
MR. BEAUREGARDE: Yeah, but your face is turning blue! Violet, you're turning violet, Violet!
VIOLET: What are you talking about?
WONKA: I told you I hadn't got it quite right yet.
MR. BEAUREGARDE: You can say that again. Look what it's done to my kid!
WONKA: It always goes wrong when we come to the dessert. Always.
MR. BEAUREGARDE: Violet, what are you doing now?!? You're blowing up!
VIOLET: I feel funny.
GRANDPA JOE: I'm not surprised.
VIOLET: What's happening?
MR. BEAUREGARDE: You're blowing up like a balloon!
WONKA: Like a blueberry.
MR. BEAUREGARDE: Somebody do something! Call a doctor!
MRS. TEEVEE: Stick her with a pin.
CHARLIE: She'll pop!
WONKA: It happens every time! They all become blueberries.
MR. BEAUREGARDE: You've really done it this time, haven't you, Wonka. I'll break you for this.
WONKA: Oh, well, I'll get it right in the end.
VIOLET: Help! Help!
(Wonka plays the pipe whistle.)
MR. BEAUREGARDE: We've got to let the air out of her, quick!
WONKA: There's no air in there.
MR. BEAUREGARDE: Hmm?
WONKA: That's juice.
MR. BEAUREGARDE: Juice?!?
WONKA: (to an Oompa Loompa) Would you roll the young lady down to the juicing room at once, please.
MR. BEAUREGARDE: What for?
WONKA: For squeezing. She has to be squeezed immediately before she explodes.
MR. BEAUREGARDE: Explodes?!?
WONKA: It's a fairly simple operation.

ICANN says (4, Funny)

Ranger (1783) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233646)

Don't taste me, bro!

Re:ICANN says (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22234504)

Huuuuurrrrr

lol-internets (-1, Offtopic)

livingdeadline (884462) | more than 6 years ago | (#22233726)

ICANN has cheezburger?!

tagging system (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22234128)

The tags on this story (except for "internet") are completely uninformative.

According to the FAQ, tags are supposed to describe the article. Inane tags like yes, no, maybe, suddenbreakoutofcommonsense, and whatcouldpossiblygowrong don't do anything of the sort. Other tags that repeat information that is in the story title would make sense if there were a way to search for stories by tag. If that's not implemented, then I don't see any point to them.

The tagging system is a nice idea, but in the current incarnation it seems that the primary function is to collect the most common (and therefore trite) snide comments that people make, and post them at the top of a story.

Re:tagging system (0, Offtopic)

nazrhyn (906126) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234358)

The tagging system is a nice idea, but in the current incarnation it seems that the primary function is to collect the most common (and therefore trite) snide comments that people make, and post them at the top of a story.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. I can't count how many laughs I've gotten out of reading the tags that get associated with articles. That's not how they were "intended" to be used? Oh.

Re:tagging system (1)

Butterspoon (892614) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234574)

'dupe' is useful, and by itself almost makes the whole thing worthwhile.

Re:tagging system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22235896)

very true. 'slashdotted' is also a good one. The tagging system needs overhauling--not removing.

Side Effect: Reduction in spam URLs? (2)

Bilby Baggins (1107981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234306)

I wonder how many of these 'domain tasters' are just registering domains to use in spam and phishing scams. Considering how often the URL changes on the spam I get (that is obviously from the same originator) I would imagine that's what they're doing. If that's the case, I expect the elimination of domain tasting to at least change the way spam is set up, perhaps making some of it easier to detect.

In any case, domain tasting is a very antiquated system almost designed to be abused, and should have been dropped long ago.

good move (2, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234472)

One step back from the wrong direction they've been heading for years.

Or can anyone here name me one not-advertisement-related reason for "domain tasting"? The only use I've ever read about is registering the domain and checking if you get enough hits on it to run your ads with enough profit, before you commit yourself.

Re:good move (2, Informative)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234842)

TFA said they implemented this 'feature' for those who accidentally register a domain. (I assume that's for misspellings, etc.) They didn't forsee it being used like this. They came to the conclusion that the harm caused by tasting greatly outweighs the benefits of letting someone off the hook for a mistake.

Everyone knows (2, Funny)

hyperz69 (1226464) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234704)

Domains taste like chicken.

This does take action on front-running... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234756)

Eliminating the grace period also eliminates front-running. If you read the transcript, NSI had in fact indicated that they would roll back front-running if they lost the grace period.

So.. (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234764)

So what is the best register to use for us UKians?

Expired domain zone settings (2, Insightful)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234788)

While I think this is great I have another gripe that I wish ICANN would address. We resell domains to our ISP customers. We had one expire yesterday which isn't that uncommon of an occurrence. We had sent the customer an email alerting to the impending expiration and they never acted and the domain expired. As expected they noticed the problem the next morning and now it's a big deal; they were no longer receiving email from their customers and email was mission critical to them (interesting considering that they couldn't be bothered to read an email from their Internet provider). We renewed the domain at about 11am. I told them that it would probably be about half a day before the NS change was pushed to the root servers and the cached records expired on their customers' NSs. This morning it is still apparently a problem. I checked one of our NSs and sure enough it still had the registrar's temporary NSs instead of the NSs we use for customer zones. I queried a few NSs of other providers and they had the right info. I flushed my cache and the records fixed themselves. My earlier dig that showed the wrong NSs also showed two TTL counters. At the time the counter on the NSs was at just under 14hrs. The other was just under 48hrs. The registrar apparently set the TTL value on the domain to somewhere between 24 and 72 hours.

The significance of this may not be obvious to everyone so let me explain. The TTL (Time To Live) value is part of the SOA (Start of Authority) in a DNS zone file. The TTL value is how the administrator of the authoritative NS tells the client's DNS resolver to cache the DNS responses. Ie, if I lookup the MX for blah.com and the TTL is 300 then I will cache that response for 5 minutes and I'll use that cached response for any subsequent queries until the TTL expires. I won't bug you or waste your bandwidth until then. It's a way of reducing load on the authoritative NSs and keep from wasting bandwidth across the Internet for redundant queries (think of a caching HTTP proxy).

The effect of the registrar's taking this step manifests itself when the domain gets renewed. The domain is renewed as soon as service is interrupted and the problem is discovered. The registrar submits updates to Verisign for the COM zone file twice a day. Depending on when the domain was renewed with respect to when the registrar sends the updates as well as the SOA values (that control caching) dictate how long it will be before the domain is functional again. The registrar, Spirit Domains, chose to set the TTL to something between 24 and 72 hours. That's 1-3 days for the math challenged among us. That's absurdly long. I contend that most renewals of expired domains happen within 1-12 hours of the expiration for domains that are actually used. Why any registrar would choose to use a TTL longer than an hour or two is beyond me. I can understand the concern of the load this would put on their NSs. The answer is simple though. For the first day set the TTL to 1hr. On the second day set the TTL to 6 hours. On day 3 set it to 12 hours. On day 7 set it to whatever you want. 98% of expired domains that are going to be renewed would surely be done within 3 days. That would keep the MTTR for the function of the domain down to a reasonable level. 24-72hrs is not a reasonable level.

I called Spirit Domains to chew on them earlier this morning. The guy I spoke with said that he didn't know why that TTL value was chosen but that it was what they always used. He said it was definitely between 24 and 72 hours. That's horse shit. On top of that, in the temp zone they created also had a MX record. It was the MX record that had the extra high TTL of +48hrs. Even if the NS records expired in 24 hours the MX records would have still been cached and would have still been pointed at Spirit Domains SMTP blackhole: grey-area.mailhostingserver.com.

In short I would like to see ICANN address the problem of what registrars put in their expired domain zone files. The TTLs should be kept low and increment slowly. Their should not be a MX record under any circumstances.

Re:Expired domain zone settings (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22235732)

0) I don't see why ICANN should do anything about this.

1) If you don't like the TTLs Spirit Domains uses, you should take it up with them or switch to a registrar that uses TTLs you like.

2) Why should your customer be using you for "domain name stuff"?

After all, in this scenario what "value add" did you provide compared to if they had used a decent registrar?

Registrars send warning emails too (at least Gandi did when I last let a domain name expire).

I'm sure you can think of ways to do things better.

By the way, some evil registrars actually start squatting on the name once it "really expires", so if you want it back after your X month vacation (or coma or whatever) you have to pay a lot more.

Taste this (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22236566)

whois networksolutionsisabunchoffags.com

Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net/ [internic.net]
for detailed information.

      Domain Name: NETWORKSOLUTIONSISABUNCHOFFAGS.COM
      Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
      Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
      Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/ [networksolutions.com]
      Name Server: NS1.RESERVEDDOMAINNAME.COM
      Name Server: NS2.RESERVEDDOMAINNAME.COM
      Status: clientHold
      Updated Date: 30-jan-2008
      Creation Date: 30-jan-2008
      Expiration Date: 30-jan-2009

whois networksolutionsisqueer.com

Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net/ [internic.net]
for detailed information.

      Domain Name: NETWORKSOLUTIONSISQUEER.COM
      Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
      Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
      Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/ [networksolutions.com]
      Name Server: NS1.RESERVEDDOMAINNAME.COM
      Name Server: NS2.RESERVEDDOMAINNAME.COM
      Status: clientHold
      Updated Date: 30-jan-2008
      Creation Date: 30-jan-2008
      Expiration Date: 30-jan-2009

No offense to gays intended.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>