Slashdot Mirror
Network Solutions "Owns" Your Domain Name!
jvj24601 writes "A columnist at news.com reports that Network Solutions has recently changed its contracts -- it now 'owns' the domain name and can take it back at will. This has been held up in court. I am especially appalled that their agreement states 'NSI may terminate "domain name registration services" if the registrant uses them for "any improper purpose, as determined in our sole discretion."'"
Time to check the
DomainNameBuyersGuide again ...
i wonder how this will effect domain squatters who ut up chunks of names with the sole purpose of auctioning them off on ebay, holding them for "ransom", etc.
- Entertaining Bits from the Ancient Kernel Tree
So instead of using Network Solutions, every one registers with the other domain registrars. Who loses? Well, sure it's a hassle, but there goes Network Solutions' income. Darwinism is fun to watch.
I recommend Register.com currently, as you aren't tied up for two years, and it is really easy to manage your domain via they're web page. Register.com doesn't seem to me to have some of the problems Network Solutions has.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Looks like I need to transfer my domains to CORE.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Any lawyers care to comment on what my options might be? Can I sue them, and if so, for what? This is a definate consumer-rights issue.
So if, at any time, Network Solutions or it's political constituants disagree with the position that you are taking on your website under their domain name, then they have the right to withdraw that domain name from you?
So who owns freedom dot com?
dc
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
We should all get together and make our own DNS registration. Just like all the napster spinoffs, lets do a nameserver spinoff.
Then whats the point! This can't be legal. . . I'm the Business Mgr of a local ISP that host Domains(Hundreds) and I'm sure that this will not go over well with them or new Customers. Damnit!
"I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
Let's see, what could NSI do if they *really* wanted to? NSI Guy: Man... this other registrar has a better deal than us. Time to shut them down. This is exactly the kind of crap that is going to make the internet falter. Notice I said *falter* and not totally fall. While this certianly will be stifling, I think people realize how much the internet has done for the world, and how much it will give in the future. Let's just hope NSI get's their head out of the sand, and starts to think of who they _serve_: the customers.
Fran Frisina (franf@hhs.net)
http://www.zero-productions.com/money
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
My domain is about to come up for renewal soon; is it possible to transfer it to a sane registrar? I haven't been able to find an answer to this.
There *is* competiton in the .com/.org/.net domain registration business, after all.
.com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
Though, when I think about it, maybe it's not obvious. Some people haven't gotten the idea yet.
[rs.internic.net]
Whois Server Version 1.1
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
Domain Name: SLASHDOT.ORG
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: NS1.ANDOVER.NET
Name Server: NS2.ANDOVER.NET
Updated Date: 08-feb-2000
Let's see them revoke microsoft.com and msn.com!
Isn't that an improper practice?
--
If R is the set of all sets which don't contain themselves, does R contain itself?
Dotster Rocks! 45$ a year for planetmofo.com, org and net? The cost difference alone paid for my first 3 months of hosting. NSI is a dinosaur, and should be treated as such. 'course, dotster hasn't been involved in a lawsuit yet, that'll probably change my opinion.
as i recall, there was a web-based registrar rating site -- that lists the details of agreements from the various registrars, etc.
when my NSI expires in several months, i should just be able to transfer it over to one of the more forward-thinking registrars, correct?
i think there's one in san diego with a good rep.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
For instance, wouldnt it be nice if Network solutions could haul off and revoke all the stupid domain names that point to pr0n? (www.whitehouse.com springs to mind)
IF Network Solutions could be trusted to do the right, ethical and moral thing, this would also pretty much eliminate cybersquatting of the worst kind. But, as we have seen from NetSol's past reputation, they cannot be trusted to do anything resembling ethical behavior. (can you say "Sure, everyone can be a registrar, but we still own the master DB, and will enforce this when we please)
This poicy will be abused, not if, but when, and I truly feel sympathy for this little guy out there on the web who might be trying to make some money for him/herself and gets stepped on by big bad NetSol.
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
So Network Solutions claims to have ownership for the following domains?
microsoft.com
apple.com
intel.com
disney.com (go.com)
This is after these domains are renewed with NSI, according to the contract.
narbey
-- "The evil stops here" -Petr
From the article:
By contrast, Phil Sbarbaro, NSI's legal counsel, offered a parallel to summarize prevailing law: "You don't own a domain name any more than you own your phone number."
Reading this really scares me, because it shows how big NSI *thinks* it's roll is on the Internet. NSI is not the provider of the Internet or even the provider of domain names; they are just an administrative body in place to manage the root name servers and take fees to manage the names in them. They didn't CREATE these domain names.
Argh, why did the government ever hand this over to private industry? =P Or at least, why weren't there more protections put in place BEFORE they handed it over?
- Isaac =)
what happened to the times when we used to say;
"aw, that's bullshit, that'll never stand up in court!"
. . . and we'd be right?
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It seems like abusing publicly bestowed trust in this way is itself an "improper purpose." Perhaps some clever lawyer could compel network solutions to take back its own domain name.
it doesn't sound legal to change the contract terms once the contract has been executed? (IANAL)
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
now tell me what this means:
"any improper purpose, as determined in our sole discretion."'
so now can they take back xxx.com becouse they put up child porn?
or
lets say i have weed.com and i tell you how to grow weed. and now lets say they dislike that idea. can they take that domain name back too?
or
what if Micros~1 gives them a deal on X number of copys of W2K in exchange for revoking slashdot.org
what then?
ICANN should terminate networksolutions.com for improper use.
I never did trust them...
Ender
Nothing to see here
"...improper purposes..." + $, influence, etc. = "Welcome to slashdot.org, the newest member of the MSN family"
See you there.
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
For all the domains I own or have bought for friends without credit cards (g) I went through Joker.com.
Fast, friendly, efficent. Gotta love it!
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
This page summarizes the legal rights offered by the different registrars. As you can see, the problem with Network Solutions has been known for some time.
It seems as if the Internet is becoming less and less the realm of freedom as I once thought it was. It seems that every day I become more and more disappointed with the court rulings and corporate decisions that take place. This is just another case of how one group can decide for the rest of us what is and isn't "improper". In no way can I see how giving Network Solutions this power is good for anyone.
Thanks NSI! I can't tell you how much fun I had dealing with your ongoing garbage for the past 3 years! And to think my company has registered over 1000 domains with you guys for our customers over the past 5 years!
In using Tucows OpenSRS we have had extreme reliability, durability, speed, and low prices. Any ISP who hasn't implemented this service yet doesn't know what they are missing... Only $10/year per domain.
And for all you end users out there, don't miss out Domain Monger, who implement OpenSRS, and only charge $17/year.
NSI... How are you still a company?
EraseMe
I urge everyone to use other registrars. If NSI is claiming this on behalf of all domains in the Internic database, then a class action lawsuit is going to be needed.
.us and .(state).us for the United States, and .ca in Canada, for example, instead of the almightly .com. Here in Canada, at least, .ca registration is free to incorporated businesses and non-profit agencies, and also to propieterships if a trademark or name is established.
/.? Yesterday and today, the main server, the ad server, and the image server have sporadically been unavailable. Wired reported that there have been some DDoS's in progress.)
Alternatively, perhaps people should start using the location based prefixes... i.e.
(by the way, is someone launching DDoS's against parts of
--
This is fascinating, it's almost as if NSI was deliberately trying to alienate its customers. What extraordinary steps will they take next to scare us away? Perhaps they'll start knocking down doors in the middle of the night to shake us down for 'domain protection money' or switch domains around once in a while for fun.
NSI is like a bunch of thugs. As long as they were the only game in town, they did brisk business and just performed their function as licensed. Now that there's competition, they're throwing their weight around like a nervous drug pusher who's worried about someone else moving in on his block.
I wish there was something we could do to avoid the NSI built infrastructure, but even their competitors need to work with NSI to get domains registered and acknowledged.
Where's our famed net-anarchy when we need it?
Get your facts straight Siggy... the latest court ruling in the sex.com case in fact found that domain names weren't to be considered property.
The DNS system currently works on consensus, everyone agrees who the Top Level Nameservers are. We should simply say "No More", designate some new TLNs, and tell Network Solutions to stuff it. I am sure that some company, Maybe IBM would donate some computers to run the Database that would feed this. And we should host it outside the USA, since the Internet is International in it's scope today, and NSI has lots of money for lawyers.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
I don't mean this as flamebait, but we're all aware that there are other, subjectively better registrars out there, so we don't need any more posts telling us this.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
[...]
Domain Name: SLASHDOT.ORG
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Not that it means anything, but someone was going to point it out.
Just like Andover, I have a few domains registered with NSI that I'd like to transfer. Is there a good FAQ/HOWTO out there? I'm particularly interested in actual experiences and pitfalls to avoid.
Maybe next they'll argue that as the keeper of the DB they reallyown a.com, aa.com, ab.com, ac.com [...] zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.com, and you just happen to be renting a random string of alphanumerics?
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Maybe now we can get NetSol to shut down spammers that have their domains registered with them.
To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.
As noted on /. a few weeks ago this site compares services based on contract or price.
-
air and light and time and space
There have been a couple of DNS-"replacements" before - I forget (and on really quick looking couldn't come up with a link) where one of the dissenters/troublemakers hacked some sites for publicity - bad idea, got him burned bad.
Second point - Yeah, this is Slashdot, but does "open source" have to be suggested for EVERYTHING? Don't like McDonalds?! Open Source Burgers are the answer!
DNS *is* open source *now*. The only thing holding you back is the approval (of others) to set up DNS.
All you have to do is get enough people to force lookups to your servers, too..... (good luck).
But nothing stops anybody from setting up their own DNS servers, in their own hierarchy. Whether anybody ever points there for lookups, on the other hand...
Addison
I am apalled that NSI would make this major a change without notifying the customers. The idea that a domain name is 'just like a phone number' is ludicrous! The court demonstrates a real deficit of knowledge about how the domain system works by finding that the name is a product of contract for services. Just the very OPPOSITE is true. The domain name itself can be registered with any registrar, and the services are contracted to support the use of that name. Under this new policy, you'd better hope you haven't already renewed. Here's a scenario:
.tv domain are auctioning domains for $1000 a pop. I will absolutely move to another registrar BEFORE I renew at NSI, lest I, too, tacitly agree to give away my company's property, which my company owned well BEFORE NSI took over the registry business. It's bad enough we have to change IP's when we change ISP's, but now we have to change domain names along with our registrars? Can they possibly get away with this for long?
1) Domain owner of extremely popular domain name X decides to switch to a different registrar and informs NSI
2) NSI pulls the domain name X from the owner, but maintaining it within their database, since it now belongs to NSI
3) Domain owner must choose a different name when switching registrars, because NSI wants to sell domain name X to the highest bidder.
I don't doubt they're miffed by a) losing their monopoly, b) the fact that other registrars, like the owner of the
These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
From the article:
Domain name holders who registered their names under older contracts become bound to
the new conditions automatically when they renew their names with NSI for another one-year term.
And from there on out, all NSI changes in policy are automatic and don't even require notice of the contractees.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
introduce competition not to sell domain names, but to implement the search functionality they provide.
Now that Network Solutions has decided to do this, this is what is going to happen next:
Business will drop dramatically from those who know what they are doing.
Eventually this drop in business will effect them so much that they will consider repealing this new clause to their contract.
Due to their way-too-big egos, they will not repeal it for fear of looking like idiots (too late).
To make up for lost revenue, they will start taking popular domains away for frivilous reasons. A few hell.coms auctioned off here and there and they make up quite a bit of money.
If people haven't moved away from Network Solutions yet, they will now.
Pretty soon Network Solutions won't have any domains left and will go bankrupt unless they decide to fess up and give in (fat chance).
- What do you think - sounds correct?
How would I go about changing my domain name which my ISP registered under NS?
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
This implies (to me, at least) that NSI "owns" all unregistered names, too. If they "own" the domain then they must have owned it before, too, right? I certainly wouldn't create a name myself and then promptly give it to someone else for the privledge of being listed in a routing table. If you follow the logic then NSI also "owns" all domains registered through other registrars. At least according to them.
How exactly does this work? The only way I can see it (possibly) holding up legally is if when you agree to their terms of service you do indeed give them those rights, and I really don't think those sorts of rights are assignable.
Somebody explain this, as it makes no sense to me.
Right now I'm in a very weird situation. I've registered my lastname.com. Then this small company in US (I'm in Canada) have emailed me saying that it should be theirs. Of course I replied saying no way. I also don't want to ask for $$, because I'm afraid they can use that against me later. The only thing that worries me is that NS and this company are both in the US, so can they go straight to each other and transfer it? Would I then have to pay my own legal fees and go down the border to haggle for it? Shouldn't have picked NS dammit, but if I didn't I'm might have been too late!
No one is really going to be free until nerd persecution ends.
yet it appears that they can use their own info on their customers and send out 'the internet newsletter' (or whatever the hell they called it) at will.
when I asked them to remove me from their spam list, it took almost a month to have my name removed from their marketing distribution.
so keep it up, NSI; you'll lose subscribers faster than win98 crashes, at this rate.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
You know, this "power to terminate" might not be all bad!
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
EasyHosting sells (rents? :D) domains for $15CA per year. They use the OpenSRS system. Updates to the OpenSRS database are immediate, and as far as I can tell, fairly quick to NetSols main WHOIS database. userfriendly.com has a nice, simple OpenSRS login page to edit all aspects of your domain records as well.
If it wasn't such a hassle, I'd transfer my two NetSol-registered domains over, but I'll just wait and re-register with a OpenSRS reseller.
BAM!
As much as NSI sucks, at least they get the job done.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This seems a little crazy on Network Solutions part, in effect ehy are saying the own all the unborn and unthought of domain names, that may be in the future registered with them.
Here is a scenario lets say I am the rightful holder of shmuckiness.com, and have been operating that business for a number of years. Now I want to register my domain name with NSI, i do that, and now they own it. Lets say I want to switch, or something happens (NSI's fault) were I no longer have that domain. If it is not used by someone else are they not, in some ways, acting as domain squatters???? They own and hold a domain that is under my copyright. This, although farfetched, should not be legal. Domain names are equivalent to online identity, they are not just phone numbers (i would understand if you made that argument with IPs, but domain names are like last names)
Surely this cannot effect existing contracts, unless there was a clause in the original contract stating that such a thing was possble.
Something like this would not be binding under Canadian law, but I know nothing of American law.
In any event, in Canada at least, you cannot make changes to an existing contract unless both parties to the contract agree to the change. The effect is that the old contract is voided and a new contract comes into being. The impression I get is that this has not taken place so how is it possibly enforceable?
The interface is not the best but once you get past that they are great.
Isn't this getting to be THE cliche response on slashdot now?
We should all get together and make our own beowulf cluster of reverse-engineered petrified natalie portmans, running overclocked crusoes with iMac mice.
Narf!
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Not really, given the legal and political atmosphere... Mama said there'd be days like this.
--- "1.21 Jigawatts!" -Doc
One thing about the issue of "cybersquatting?" How would NSI (or anyone) necessarily be able to tell if a domain someone owns, and isn't doing anything with, is actually "squatting," and not just mired in procrastination/other projects and just hasn't been able to move forward yet.
Yeah, true... a lot of squatters may have one of those "Heyyyy you can buy this domain name for X dollars, just contact us.." but a lot of other squatters may not do that. How do you separate those people from the people (like myself) who own a number of domain names (one of which will be transferred to CORE or TUCOWS in the near future, after reading that article) but haven't been able to get going on their plans yet? Can NSI decide, unilaterally, that "Well, they aren't doing anything with it... lemme just -yank- that away."
Well, maybe that is an exaggeration of what they might do.. but I wouldn't put it past them, either.
IANAL.
Imagine I have a company named "XYZ". Let's say I've trademarked "XYZ". Even worse, let's say my company name is "XYZ.COM".
Would this mean that NSI would have to license the use of my company name in order to license the domain name containing a trademark back to me?
Still, it seems clear to me that when you purchase a name from the registrar, you're getting a service, not universal rights to the name. Although I think NSI's preparing to shoot themselves in the foot if they abuse this policy, the ownership of domain names is still a fuzzy area.
-dwd-
If by open source you mean FREE, then I dont know of any current services. There is a paid one called Alternic. I've never used them for anything, so I dont know what that's like.
I got tired of my ISP expiring the "legacy UNIX shell accounts" and having to change my email address and get everyone to update. My address is my identity. So I got my own domain name and host it on my own hardware. Now even if I move or switch ISPs. I just update my domain's DNS server addresses and keep my address. If NSI thinks they can yank domains for "any reason, at *their* sole discretion" then I want to transfer to another registrar. But there's no FAQ or info on how to do this. The registrars don't seem to like each other and without cooperation, domain transfers are impossible.
Other registrars have similar forms.
Amazing how quickly everybody jumps on this NOW. As the article says, the ruling passed a month ago, and the contract change occured last NOVEMBER. DomainNameBuyersGuide.com has a huge WARNING in the overall rating of NSI because of this very clause! This is something that's been known for months already.
- In hell, treason is the work of angels.
I don't know exactly what NSI had/has in mind but I highly doubt that it is to pull established and reputable domain names from existing companies.
I mean really, they must know that pulling a stunt like taking away a domain from somebody like slashdot.org, microsoft, intel, etc. would land them some serious lawsuits. Not to mention, I highly doubt that they can turn around and say that in retrospect they own a previously established address. Its like charging somebody for a a crime commited before a law was passed that made it a crime (can't remember what that is called now).
Now whether new domains are actually subject to the ownerships is another thing. Bad business move though, as many have pointed out, I'd go find a new registrar. I tend to think this move is probably oriented towards squashing cyber-squatting, but unfortunately methinks nobody will use them for a registrar if they keep that ultimate power. (Yeah , I want to get my domain from NSI become a multi-million dollar company and leave myself open to having NSI do kinda a reverse cyber-squatting thing...)
-- A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard
States that anyone who didn't use their real name, address, phone number, or email is subject to NSI revocking their "services." I seriously doubt that they could get away with say revoking, say, slashdot.org without due process of some sort (they may try, but
Furthermore, contrary to the article, i see nothing about this affecting you once you renew...
So when will we get an Ask Slashdot about how to switch registrars safely?
I hope that text isn't a copyrighted "trade secret."
CLOSE the NSI account. This company is worse than Unysis. To think I have no right to sell a house I've added value to at a higher price WTF?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I believe this has always been the case, even if they haven't stated it explicitly.
You can never "buy" a domain name outright, you can simply buy the control of one for X number of years.
Of course, NSI shouldn't own it any more than we do..
but I didn't agree to this new contract when I orignally purchased my 2 domain names 1.5 years ago. Am I still legally bound by it? Isn't Network Solutions required to notify me of changes in my contract with them? I haven't recieved any e-mails to my listed contacts nor have I recieved an snail mail pertaining to this. IANAL but this seems to be rather illegal if you ask me. I paid them to host the root DNS for the domains I registered. I did not pay them so that I could "rent" for my domain names. Bloody Indian Givers!
So instead of using Network Solutions, every one registers with the other domain registrars. Who loses? Well, sure it's a hassle, but there goes Network Solutions' income. Darwinism is fun to watch.
But it's not Darwinism and natural selection. It's a very carefully and tightly controlled process of genetic manipulation. The unworthy need not attempt to join the game.
Not anyone can be a registrar unless they sign the WIPO agreement.
Wheather or not one agrees with WIPO, you must be able to smell the politics and power trips of ICANN. There's no competition or free market. ICANN is absolute dictator behind the scenes.
A GLOBAL internet ought to have GLOBAL registrars.
Differ with ICANN on idealogy and they won't let you play. Is this not wrong?
This seems very pro-big business and anti-little guy to me. NS isn't going to drop a big business because of the legal battles they could get into, but they can drop a little guy because he is "infringing" or "squatting" on a supposed big business name. Could a big business say, "I'll give you X more dollars than that guy so I can have that domain." and NS obey because their "sole discression" is to make money? Also sounds like NS is "squatting" on all the domain names if they own them. Can you sue NS for owning your trademarked domain name?
Here's a semi-interesting thought: If NSI now, supposedly, "owns" all the domain names in their database... what is it, then, that the those people who bought a domain through another party (cybersquatter) for oodles of money actually got? Is this now just a total loss for them, seeing that they really don't own anything tangible (as tangible as a domain name really is)?
While overall, I am upset over this move by NetworkSolutions, there is a bright side to it. Should a person's domain name be hijacked or stolen by a third party, this contractual change probably means NSI now has more power in getting it back and reassigning the domain name to its rightful owner. Perhaps that alone is reason enough to embrace the change.
---------------
---------------
JavaScript tutorials scripts
Hell, why doesn't the Virginia court just give NSI a license to print money?
In the recent discussion of "... for Complete Morons" trademark claims, it was pointed out that phantom marks are not granted, e.g., someone cannot possibly tie up in advance all trademarks of two words where the second word is "Services".
So exactly how much hubris does it take for NSI to claim that they own all possible domain names, present and future? I can't say that I'm surprised, but I can say that I continue to be disgusted by NSI's megalomania.
My company has a number of domain names registered at Netowk Solutions, and unfortunately, we've have nothing but problems when dealing with them. I think one of the most frustrating things about that company is their lack of phone-support people. Literally, you cannot get a tech support person on the phone. And when you do, it's generally not helpful, because they do not perform you request for domain entry modifications for at least a couple of weeks!!!
;)
So, will just rant and not give useful advice? Heck no!!! goto these guys for ANY domain name services:
http://www.internetnamesww.com/
They have to be the best domain name registrar that I have dealt with to date. And they're polite!!!
-- Humans, because the hardware IS the software.
If NSI owns a domain name that *I* have a trademark for, they're in BIG trouble. Based on prior court cases it's established that it's trademark infringement to own a domain name which is the same/similar to a trademark. Oh, this is going to be fun.... ;-)
sigs are a waste of space
I used RegisterFree for my website during their free promotion. They're great, $19.95/year with a web based DNS management system. 4 stars (and only 4 because it took me a month to get the 'key' for the domain name for use at the DNS management page - apparently, they forgot to request it during the free signup, so they had to do it manually.)
ahhhh but they are free!!!!
YOU AGREE THAT DOTSTER WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY (a) SUSPENSION OR LOSS OF THE DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION IN YOUR NAME
which later includes
(f) EVENTS BEYOND DOTSTER'S REASONABLE CONTROL; (g) THE PROCESSING OF THIS APPLICATION;
I wonder if NSI would go so far as to revoke domains from people who attempt to change registrars. It would be a hell of a way to keep clients. At least if they do, dotster will be happily protected from liability.
I ate my sig.
I just went over to register.com and saw that they have a new (???) TLD to register -- .ws (WorldSite). Any info on this? (official, that is?)
does this mean that the people that got sued over having a trademark domain name could get their money back (if it was with NSI) Seeing how they didn't own it?
.. I recently registered my domain (www.planetq3f.com) through them, and the text contract that I got in the mail didn't mention this at all..
.- CitizenC (User Info)
Ok, I own a domain thats registered though NSI, is there anyway to change it to someone else that isn't such pricks?
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
I'm really becoming worried by what I see going on here. It seems as though nothing is what it seems. pretty soon it will be:
You pay for a service, but you can't put anything on your newly paid for website that may be contradictory to Network solutions beliefs.
When I pay for a domain I demand creative control! Who is network solutions to decide what I can or cannot put on my site. What the hell does: "any improper purpose, as determined in our sole discretion." mean?
Do they get to decide what I can publish. Sounds a lot like mind control.
flatrabbit,
peripheral visionary
"Never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it."
Why would you ever want them deciding that you can't own a URL because it's going to point to porn? Soon they'll just be banning porn altogether... and THEN what are we going to do?
--
RumorsDaily
They claim they own the names now, right?
So if I try to transfer registration to a more legitimate registration service, they just say "nope, you can't do that -- we own it!".
What still confuses me is how they can say they own that domain? What if another domain name service had registered the domain for you instead of NSI? There is a serious logic-gap that I'm finding difficult to even explain here. Something akin to saying a phone company saying "every time someone makes a phone call, we own the rights to the conversation that took place on it" or a copy-shop saying "if you use our photocopiers to make copies of any material, we assume ownership to that material automatically!", regardless of the real author or originator of the material you're photocopying.
I don't think that I made very much sense there. Apologies. But it's difficult to explain something that is so absurd.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
I'm gonna tranfer all the domains I am administrative contact for to another registrar. And them I am going to encourage anyone who I am technical contact for, as well as friends who have domains, to move them. Then, I'm going to tell any new customers of the webhosting company I work for to register their domain names somewhere else.
If we can't make them change their arrogant, customer-unfriendly policy, we should take our buisness to companies that actually respect their clientel.
-Wintermute
Verisign's merger with Network solutions appears to be going ahead
Veri Sign, Network Solutions merger clears hurdles on ZDNN
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
I have a domain that predates NSI's spinout as a for-profit registry. I wonder if my status is different from that of those who registered afterward?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
how about this?
I tended to think that NameZero owns my domain, and they would probably have agreed. It would be interesting to ask them who they believe "owns" my domain now.
ironic that nsi has recently tried to force domains to be a service rather than property (thereby reducing liability and retaining control of .com namespace) - and then this week - they announced that they are going to offer aftermarket services to compete directly with afternic.com!
(see http://www.afternic .com/index.cfm?a=th&fId=21&tid=1497&rc=11008)
if nsi is claiming that as a registrant i don't own my name, pretty odd that they would offer a service for me to sell it! they are so greedy they need to have their cake and eat it too - a domain is like property when nsi needs a sexy new revenue stream to announce for its shareholders, but it is a service when nsi might be legally liable. they will probably get their way, they exert so much influence and $ over icann and the industry (not to mention political clout). no big deal, just the future of internet identity and branding at stake.:-O
use melbourne it; they have the most registrant friendly license agreement (only ones to receive 4 stars by www.domainbuyersguide.com)
Well, there's Alternic.
There's nothing stopping anyone setting up root servers for an independent DNS system - except persuading people to use it.
Choice of masters is not freedom.
There are two problems here. The first is that there is a need for translation between 'human memorable' names and IP addresses. This means that something like DNS is needed. It doesn't have to be DNS.
The second problem is managing distribution of IP addresses. v4 IP addresses are meant to be in short supply. They're not. There are 2^32 (less a few) possible addresses. The number of Internet-connected hosts is 1-2 orders of magnitude less than that. The problem isn't a lack of available v4 IP addresses; it's piss-poor management of the available ones. One solution is hard - getting people (and, more importantly, routers) to manage v4 addresses intelligently. The other solution is easy. Move to IP v6. This will happen (probably very suddenly - all the infrastructure is in place).
However, mapping 'human-readable' names to IP addresses is the issue here. DNS is inherently a hierarchical structure. It doesn't need to be. I think that a truly distributed lookup system is more desirable. The obvious example (although I disapprove of both) is Gnutella versus Napster.
My suggestion is simple: The free software community should develop a distributed name -> address resolution protocol in conjunction with IETF. Conflict resolution should be handled with existing copyright law.
These are ideas. Please respond intelligently (I have enough hot grits already)
This is just another step toward total internet control by the goverment and large corporations. This is seriously fucked up.
And guess what? Network Solutions-apparently deciding this in a surge of morality- has begun to censor the NAMES of domain names. Go try it! Type in any dirty word and network tyrant's web-site, and it will tell you that the name is innapropriate! (Innapropriate words for the future: freespeech , sucks, anti-government, anti-coca-cola, anti-AOL)
Pretty soon network solutions is probably going to shut down EFF! Citing "innapropriate amterial". And when asked what material that is, they will just say: "That is at our discretion".
----------------------------------
It's not really hard to imagine what could happen if this kind of contract becomes commonly used :
.it domains, the government realized it was time to make some kind of law that could restrict such abuses ; who's going to restrict N.S and other companies from doing the same ?
a) Happy Geek registers www.iruleyourlife.com with N.S.
b) Happy Geek becomes gazillionarie and his domain name is suddendly worth U$ 1.000.000
c) N.S realizes you have violated some esotic code of conduict they just invented. Suddendly they take your domain back and ask you $500.000 for it.
d) Happy Geek is no longer so Happy.
If you think that It's ok because of competition, deregulation or other cheap economics mumbo-jumbo I suggest you to start reading comics instead of WSJ.
Just after an important Italian media mogoul has finished registering countless
Ask your representative and watch out, your potential interests are being bought for bargain prices.
Even if Internet is new, that doesn't mean old scams don't work and spam mail is the most important (and relatively harmless) example of what happens when you don't watch your back.
WAKE UP GEEKS !
But the court decision doesn't seem to say that a domain name is a property that NSI can own, merely that it is not a form of property that any person can own. Including, presumably, NSI.
Bottom line: move your domain to a registrar that treats your domain name as something you can own, contractually, as far as they are concerned - instead of using NSI, which is refusing to do so.
>I wish it was easier to switch registars, but it is not -
>there is a window of mis-opportunity where your domain is
>"available" should you wish to switch.
no. this is not true.
it is very easy to switch. NSI engineered these fears. it is pure manipulation.
the risk is far greater if you stay.
try Tita-nic.com and secure your domain now.
Use any OpenSRS registrar for easy fast and safe transfers:
the one you find on Tita-nic.com for example is very good.
Not the cheapest, but certainly one of the best registrars out there.
You may quote me on this (everyone at work does) -
I Hate NSOL more than the entire readership of Slashdot hates Microsoft, combined. If I stood outside their offices, and hated them as much as I could, I would burn a hole in the wall.
So there. :P
Edith Keeler Must Die
You certainly would have an argument that you've established the common law requirements for trademark if you have used the address in interstate commerce... so register the URL as your Mark and you may be able to prevent another's use while this all gets worked out in court - hopefully to the logical conclusion that the domain is property as described in our original contracts. I need to go back and look at the language again to really feel safe, though.
Unfortunately I think anyone who purchases under the revisions is screwed, so go to a competitor.
Interesting that this applies only to for-profit sites... the requirements for trademark anticipate money changing hands by virtue of the accumulated good-will in the Mark. The arguments for personal sites and such might be better made under personality rights - identity control. Hmmmm.
I think it'd be pretty easy to write a bot in php that scums for first post. In fact, I might just do that
I got somthing that geocities can have.......
flatrabbit,
peripheral visionary
"Never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it."
Excuse me?
I seem to remember Network Solutions receiving the rights to *distribute* names, not *wholesale ownership of those names*.
What's $80 a year today may become 10% of Gross Profit tommorow. "Sorry, we found somebody willing to pay more for your business's identity. Too bad you don't particularly own that identity..."
This is a land grab; a damn subtle one, but a land grab nonetheless. NSI received the right to distribute names. By claiming ownership, they're assuming a far more valuable, centralized, and corruptable position--one which they have no right to assume.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
All a Registrar transfer is, is changing a couple fields in the SRS. That's it. Your NS are not changed during the process. The roots continue to hand out the referrals. There are in fact, only a few pieces of information in SRS: the domain name, the registrar's name, the registrar's whois server domain name, the registrar's web site URL, and the nameservers. Only the fields having to do with the registrar are changed during a transfer. The roots continue to delegate to the NS listed in the SRS, because those fields are not changed.
THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR
(though some registrars charge a new registration fee to do the transfer - small price to pay, especially if your domain is nearing renewal time anyway)
Edith Keeler Must Die
in IP, personal names equate to dns host/domain names; and phone numbers are like the IP addresses. my telco or isp can change my phone/IP all they want, but I still have full control over my own name. and I control which name gets mapped to the phone/IP they assign me.
and NSI will learn this, I'm sure. this proposal of theirs just won't stand.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Virginia is also one of the few states that passed the UCITA into law.
Is this a trend? Note to conspiracy theorists: AOL (now AOL-TW) headquarters is in Dulles, Virginia, isn't it?
- jonathan.
Slashdot should add a new column to the front page. Right above the latest poll add a list of current companies on the Slashdot blacklist. Then, Slashdot should change it's slogan to "Who do you want to blacklist today?"
To quote from an article in linuxjournal
"Despite the fact that it is opposed by 23 U.S. attorneys general, by every consumer-rights organization that has ever examined the issue, and by hosts of legal scholars, two U.S. states (Virginia and Maryland) have already adopted the measure. (In a noted U.S. pattern called "The Race to the Bottom", you can expect other states - hoping to cash in on lobbyists' bucks and the tax revenues they'll get by attracting software firms to their states - to adopt UCITA in short order.) "
Definitely a scary trend. If I was living in the US I would seriously consider leaving.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
"any improper purpose, as determined in our sole discretion."
Does this mean that network solutions might be libable for content in websites?
hmm...could be interesting. BTW, how do other Domain registration services compare?
-John
---
Sig Return: 204 No Content
I am having major trouble with Network Solutions. They just plain didn't send me a username and password to manage my domain.
Of course, they happily registered the domain and took my money.
After 2 weeks and numerous emails and no action i'm pretty frustrated.
I would urge anyone thinking of doing business on the internet to steer clear of Network Solutions, they are pretty sloppy at what they do.
I am kicking myself for registering with them.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
that would've been a lot better with an editor (and a lawyer :-)
it's precedent
and the issue is hardly resolved, for sure.
--
+&x
Was wondering if its possible to change registrars and noticed that Domain Monger is willing to do it for you. Looks like you should do it well in advance of the domain expiring, it appears as if the previous registrar may be able to reject the transfer if the account is being reserved for renewal.
Its indicated that not all domains are transferable, hmmmm, no details.
Abstract Dynamics
I realize that when /. was first created the only place Rob could get the domain was through NSI..but I'd be curious to know whether or not he (read: andover) will change (or at least lean towards it) registrars?
~Steve
--
~Steve
--
"<r-xr-xr-x> Just try to edit me" -- www.ircnews.com
I have registered a few domains that I have set up for clients, and boy would they be pissed if all of a sudden they had it revoked. When I registered these domains they were under the origional license, contract, or whatever it's called. Can they legally change this to apply to me without prior notification? I wish I had a copy of the previous agreement. I registered those domains based on a prior agreement. I don't get how they could change an agreement with out me signing some papers. Correct me if I'm out on a limb here.
Where are the alternative DNS services? Can't anybody say "give me 5 bucks and I'll put you on my DNS server"? Why does Network Solutions own the DNS for the entire WORLD? Travis forkspoon@hotmail.com
There seems to be some very irrational fear and speculation regarding the possible revocation of domain names by Internet Domain Name Registrars, specifically Network Solutions Inc., due to the court ruling in Network Solutions, Inc. v. Record No. 991168 Opinion by Justice Cynthia D. Kinser and changes to NSI's service agreement. These fears are completely unfounded! Not only does the case in question not rule that NSI "now 'owns' [a] domain name and can take it back at will", but it helps refute that position. Also, no where in NSI's revised service agreement does it refer to NSI owning a domain name. I have illustrated my arguments below.
The Ruling
First, I'll deal with the ruling itself. Although the majority opinion by Justice M. Langhorne Keith did rule for NSI in overturning the opinion of Justice Cynthia D. Kinser, the main issue was not whether second level domains are intellectual property or not but rather if the service being provided by NSI was garnishable. In fact, Justice Keith states this explicitly when he writes "we do not believe that it is essential to the outcome of this case to decide whether the circuit court correctly characterized a domain name as a 'form of intellectual property.'"
The part that everyone is excited about and has become the focus of this case is where he writes that the rights of a second level domain (SLD) holder(whatever those rights maybe) "do not exist separate and apart from NSI's services that make the domain names operational Internet addresses." This is a very minor point in the majority's argument and is even contradicted in the opinion: both "NSI knowledged during oral argument before this Court that the right to use a domain name is a form of intangible personal property" and "as Umbro points out, domain names are being bought and sold in today's marketplace" both point to domain names having property rights. In fact, in a 1996 case against Clue Computing, NSI took the position that a domain name was property and it maintained that view in this case, as noted in the opinion.
The point that this case solved was whether the service that NSI was providing to the court debtor, domain registration, could be garnished. The Court concludes that "a domain name registration is the product of a contract for services between the registrar and registrant" and "a contract for services is not 'a liability'... and hence is not subject to garnishment." In fact, the court once again supports that domains are property, saying in support of their ruling for NSI that "we also are concerned that a decision to uphold the garnishment at issue would be opening the door to garnishment of corporate names by serving a garnishment summons on the State Corporation Commission since the Commission registers corporate names and, in doing so, does not allow the use of indistinguishable corporate names", comparing domain names to corporate names (which is a very accurate analogy, since they often are the same; right, Andover.net?). This is not a precedent setting decision on the issue of domain name rights and the opinions contained within it will be taken by any judge strictly as that: opinions (and inconsistent ones at that).
NSI's Service Agreement .com, .net, and .org TLDs."
Secondly, there is NSI's service agreement. NSI (and all Registrars) are first and foremost governed by their agreement with ICANN. From ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement:
"H. Rights in Data. Registrar disclaims all rights to exclusive ownership or use of the data elements listed in Sections II.E.1.a through c for all SLD registrations submitted by Registrar to, or sponsored by Registrar in, the registry database for the
Further evidence that the registrar is in control (also taken from the Registrar Accreditation Agreement): "An SLD registration is "sponsored" by the registrar that placed the record associated with that registration into the registry. Sponsorship of a registration may be changed at the express direction of the SLD holder or, in the event a registrar loses accreditation, in accordance with then-current ICANN-adopted policies."
Now, to look at NSI's own service agreement. Check out section 9 entitled "DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE POLICY MODIFICATIONS." In reference to changes in its Domain Name Dispute Police, it states that "you agree that, by maintaining the reservation or registration of your domain name after modifications to the dispute policy become effective, you have agreed to these modifications." Under section 15, "BREACH", it says that in the event of a breach of contract "we may delete the registration or reservation of your domain name and/or terminate the other Network Solutions' service(s) you are using without further notice." In fact, in sections 16, 17, 19, 20, and C it refers to the domain name as belonging to "you". It only refers to the domain name in possesion-inspecific phrases (e.g., "the domain name") or phrases giving "you" possession (such as "your domain name"). "Domain name registration service", as pointed out in the court case, is very different from "domain name." Section 6, allowing NSI to change the terms of the contract at any time without notice, is definitely scary, but any real changes would be subject to a court challenge. I am not sure a person can give away the right to subsequent changes in the contract without limit, and the courts have generally held this to be true (IIRC).
Summary
Thanks,To summarize, the court case is irrelevant. If anything, it strengthens the position of a domain name holder, because it does (if conflictingly) acknowledge that a domain is property, but it rules that NSI only provides a service (and, by extension, does not own that property). And NSI, through its agreement with ICANN and its own service contract, does not and can not take ownership of anyone's domain names. Could they try to? Anyone can try, but they would be laughed out of court. I'm sorry, but the gross negligence and sensationalism in the reporting of this story (both the author of the article, Brian Livingston, and the poster, CmdrTaco) and subsequent reader backlash against NSI is very disappointing to me. Please read this and re-evaluate your opinions accordingly.
Nathan Florea
P.S. I apologize if this issue has already been addressed in the time between when I started this and when I finish it. Also, I can be contacted at a-nathfl@please-no-flames,-I-just-work-here.micro
I think this ruling is disputable. After all, I would say, unlike a phone number, a domain name is a part of, or in some cases, is, an individual's or company's identity in the Internet world. If the Internet is as important as everyone is touting it to be, then that identity should be protected just like a buisness name in the real world. I think squatting should be abolished, however, I do think the names should be given on a first come, first serve basis, as long as they are being used, and like I said before, not squatted.
"God is REAL
I would like to see registars offer new top level domains, including some that could be protected (like .org should be reserved srticly for organizations), such as .per (as in personal, for individuals, and only individuals), or something to that effect. It would be nice if individuals and small buisnesses had a protected pool of top level domains to use.
"God is REAL
I was pretty sure (back when i started using the internet) that at some point in time something was going to happen to fuck it all up. A good thing, unfortunately, is almost always a fleeting thing.
/. in the past couple of months?) Or perhaps the internet is just going to become so large that the signal to noise ratio becomes too much for everyone to handle. - But i'm starting to believe that "ownership" is going to play a HUGE role in this. - Anyone know why communism failed? Because it assumes that the populous is actually intelligent and knows the true meaning of the word "share". I think it's pretty obvious that most adults are about the same as a 2 year old in this area. They're just less eager to share different things. Instead of a Toy, it's now a Car. I'm becoming more and more afraid that the internet is going to fall in the same manner. Guys like Torvalds, Cox, and Gore (lmfao) - seem to be able to handle the whole "group" ownership thing. And for quite some time...i believe the general internet savvy public has too. But there's a paradigm shift coming - it happens when the same people that cut us off in trafic, the ones who take 40 items in the "express" checkout lane, the "general public" we talk about...becomes the average person on the internet. They can't keep the real world pristine...the internet's no different.
In this particular moment in time, i just realized what it is:
OWNERSHIP!
Perhaps the reason the internet became so cool, and so big, was because, in the beginning, a bunch of people got together and created this really cool network of computers. - No one really OWNED this network. It was just a colaboration of people, trying to do something they thought was good (for whatever reasons). (i know 500 of you want to correct me on the specifics of DARPANET...but you get the gist of it)
Now that every asshole has a computer, and every asshole at the head of every company realizes they can make money off these other assholes - Everyone wants ownership of something.
Blah blah, my domain, my ip, my this, my that! The downfall of the internet is that we're one by one, through various means, assigning specific ownership of all the various miscellany that is occurring on the internet. Something's got to give.
Perhaps either huge "megacorps" are going to spam the fuck out of everyone with banner ad us up the wazoo - and they can do it because they "own" something on the net that now allows them to do it. (case in point: how many stories of law suits or legal notifications have you been reading about just on
This "rant" has no direct link to the particular news article it is attached too. But, for the record, I believe that a domain name should be the leased property of the person it is registered to. No trademarks, no copyrights, just a leased name. when you stop paying your money...it goes back to the domain name bargain bin. - If I have an epiphany and think of some really snazzy domain name that's the next , I'll be fucking DAMNED if i shell out ~$70 and magically give it away to a registrar! NSI is never getting my business!
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
So don't do it. You don't have to change your domain if you move. See http://www.nic.us/usdom-overview.html:
The news.com article states:
Domain name holders who registered their names under older contracts become bound to the new conditions automatically when they renew their names with NSI for another one-year term.
NSI's contract change took place in November.
So, I guess the idea is to move my registration elsewhere (probably register.com), which I'd been planning to do all along...
t_t_b
--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Okay. Let's get this straight:
1) Domain names are not property. (At least in California, that is.)
2) NSI claims ownership/control over domain names registered through them.
3) Who owns NSI's domain name, then?
What the hell, I'm sure I can do a good ol' fashioned DNS grab and reassign "ownership" of the various NSI domain names to myself.
Why not? It's not as if they own it, after all (For that matter, it's not as if NSI is advocating extending property rights to domain names themselves).
Time to set up that high-traffic for-profit porn site that I've been thinking of....
"Time to go and pay the NSI-tax and register a domain...Hello!"
Maybe we can put the DNS servers on the open-sourced Iridium satellites...
-Legion
Apparently NSI's agreement allows them to revoke your domain if you make any attempt to transfer it to another registrar. Not sure if they've ever done this, though.
in which case, you can't transfer any more than you can change landlords on a rented apartment, as the domain belongs to NSI.
If you've renewed, you're screwed.
That's ludicrous! How in [gG]od'?s name can NSI claim to own someone else's intellectual property, especially intellectual property that is not yet resolved? The registration process and service, certainly. This sounds to me that NSI is claiming to own the entire domain name space including all domain names that are not yet registered.
How, then, can other registrars compete unless they license names from NSI? I guess this makes me one of N monkeys at a keyboard providing NSI with values from its perceived name space. However, it occurs to me that, perhaps, I'm not a customer/client of NSI but an employee since I'm contributing to the resolution/solution of their name space. If this is case, then I want to know what my benefits are!
My common sense tells me that this is just not constitutional.
It shouldn't be so hard to transfer away from NSI. With policies like that, no wonder they still think they can do anything they want.
Perhaps NSI wanted to get a piece of all that free advertising hackers are getting. In the next change to the contract, maybe you will be required to display on your website:
N37w0rk 501u710n5 0wn5 U
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
The Virginia Supreme Court ruling overturned the earlier ruling by a lesser court that considered domain names property, but only under certain legal circumstances (in this case the plaintiff was attempting to use the garnishment laws to force NSI to transfer a domain), and deriving from a 1997 dispute. Be aware that this ruling will almost certainly be appealed to Federal court.
The US laws have changed since 1997 (in particular, S.1948 was passed Nov. 19, 1999) and in 1999 ICANN promulgated a Uniform Dispute Resolution Process for all registrars. This UDRP change is why NSI changed its contract, NOT the court case, even if they appear to be in concert. ICANN's goal is to get registrars out of the middle of lawsuits like this, unless they act in "bad faith", for instance by ignoring a court order.
It's an open question whether the courts will continue along the path of perceiving domain names as property, or follow the lead of the Virginians and define them narrowly as the "product of a service contract". ICANN and Congress have stayed out of this question, preferring to call domain-name "owners" by the terms holder or registrant -- while unquestionably acknowledging "owner" as the term for a trademark holder. Certainly the Virginia case is not only limited to a single state supreme court's interpretation (albeit the state where NSI is based, and whose authority is acceded to in the NSI contract), but it's based on a narrow case where the registrar was being forced to take action contrary to its policies then in effect. The new legislation and the new UDRP policy may nullify any need for placing registrars in such an awkward position. Even the VA decision notes that this question is unresolved and declines to rule on it, while stating that
Bottom line? The ownership of domain names, while acknowledge implicitly by the VA supreme court and even NSI, is not fully recognized under US law at this time
Choose your registrar carefully.
----
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
It's not just when you renew your domain name with NSI that you agree to their then-current agreement. Every time you send a domain modify form in, you have to send in a copy of the then-current agreement and agree to it.
If you modified your domain after November 1999 (the date the new agreement was put in place, according to news.com) then you may have already accepted the new agreement. If you can, check: if you see Version 5.0 in the email you sent in, you did.
fyi:
"squatting" is a term which means taking over, using or settling on territory which is not yours. It has to belong to somebody else and not have been payed by you to be squatted. Since domain name "squatters" as you call them have rightfully paid for their domains in the same manner as anybody else they can hardly be considered squatting and have as much right to the domain names as anybody.
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Just to warn you all... I checked out networksolutions as a possible registrar for a domain I wanted to register via their "see if your requested domain is registered" box and well, network solutions registered it for themself! ie they "stole" my name from their httpd logs of me checking to see if the domain was registered via their website! Now, if I had proof (how could I?) I'd do something about it, but just *warning* you all be careful with how you check out domain names! In the future I'm going straight to internic - I won't be caught be shonky guys like them again!