Slashdot Mirror
NSI Class Action Lawsuit Over Domain-Squatting
Mr_Reaper writes: "Some people from eyeondomain.com started a class action lawsuit against NSI for not releasing expired domain names. If you've tried to grab an expired domain name and couldnt get it this maybe something to look at." See our previous story. The law firm is seeking affidavits from people who have attempted to register expired domain names which Network Solutions is holding on to -- you can email for more information if you want to submit such an affidavit.
And I thought everybody hated them just because of their customer service and pricing
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
In the meantime, boycott NSI and use one of the alternative registrars, like Gandi. The cost is reasonable ($10), and seem to be fairly quick at getting things set up (less than a few hours in my experience).
I've been trying to pry a couple of my domain names loose from NSI for a while now. Maybe after this I'll finally be able to...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It's not a "silver bullet" solution, and I bet people like the crack.com guys would be annoyed, but it sure seems like it would cut out the majority of the dirtbags involved in domain reselling.
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
I can vouch for the fact that NSI has released, albeit several months after expiration, an unused domain that I have always wanted to aquire.
So, it does happen...
How is one suppsed to prove that they "attempted to register" an expired domain name? I know I was looking at an expired name, noted that it wasn't released by doing a whois query. None of the registrars I know of allows you to register an expired domain name held by NSI. Is intent to register an expired domain name enough by itself?
Perhaps I shouldn't speak up. The registrant renewed their domain 6 weeks after expiry. It might go toward NSI's argument to hold on to expired domains.
Over a year ago I sold a domain name to somebody. I submitted the paper work to NSI to change possession of the domain. They still haven't done it. I eventually just changed the IP addresses on the domain to point to the new owner's hosting service, since NSI didn't do their job.
This is what government-sponsored monopolies get us. It's pretty sad. And maddening. I hope this law suit costs NSI a lot of money.
Moderation Totals:Offtopic=1, Total=1.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Besides, there's an easy workaround, which the free market will discover about 15 minutes after you get such a rule passed, which is that corporations are cheap and fungi-bull. Instead of Joe Cybersquatter buying "ValuableName.Com", and selling it to Valuable, Inc., he
So it's raised the cost of cybersquatting the name by $50, which may keep a couple of the small players out, but doesn't change anything fundamental. Alternatively, if Joe's more of a technical guy than a business guy, he could do a technical dodge around the rules
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
And it is the same with the telephone company. They charge you every year for advertising, but do they charge you MORE if they detect that you got a lot of telephone calls last year? No, they don't. I am not saying that the NSI does not have the right to charge yearly for re-registration, or inital registration, only that if they ask $25, any available name should also be $25. They didn't come up with the name, they should have no control over it's sale price. That creates an unfair advantage over smaller business or companies that may have interest in a name, whether it is an expired name, new name, or renewed name they already own. First come, first serve. The only time I can justify the sale of a domain name for a high cost is if the business is going with it, ie: if Taco sold Slashdot... oh wait he did.. eh... well you know what I mean. But in that case it's the business as a whole that is selling for a premium, the domain is only a part of that business.
One other thing to clarify here; I realize that this article deals with expired domain sales, I am talking a little more in the unexpired sense, but this really scares me. If the NSI wins here, that might mean (or make them think it means) that they have 100% control over what happens with all domain names, and that when a contract for a domain expires that they have the option to charge higher premium to renew that name. It's not that inconcievable to see them not renew unless you pay their premium for your own domain name, using the excuse that because the contract expired (they could force this, I'm sure) that they now own it and can charge a premium. As this could affect every internet business (and nonprofit) site out there, I feel this deserves mentioning.
So no, I am not saying that the NSI does not have the right to charge for a service, only that the service they provide should be limited to selling a blank space between the "//" and the "."
What is between the // and the . should not matter.
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
This lawsuit won't fix that.
Instead of NSI sitting on your old domain name, they'll be forced to sell it to the domain squatters who will jump on it the instant it expires.
-
A more appropriate Marvel senario would be this.
;(
Thay 'lease' you the comic for $3 to start. A year later they tell you to pay another $3 to keep the comic for another year. Seeing as you have already read the comic you tell them no and give it back.
A little while later you realize that you really should have kept that particular comic for some reason and want it back. So you go shopping for a copy.
But alas Marvel has made it so that comic book stores can no longer sell back issues and the only place you can now buy that old comic is from Marvel for $300.
Oh by the way you are not buying that comic you are again leasing it and Marvel will want thier money again in another year.
That's what's happening now, yes. But many people, including I assume NSI, are betting on the possibility that the rights to these names will be extremely hot property, and that even NSI will be able to offer them at prices based upon demand, not a the flat rate for the serivce they actually provide. They are hoping to truly acquire ownership over the names so they can auction them off later.
Actually, despite the fact that the original poster overestimated the return to Marvel (as you point out- because the price is dampened by the release) this does, and is well known in modern economics. Study up on what happened to the copper market a few years ago- a Japanese corporation basically cornered the market, and made huge profits doing just what you're claiming is impossible. Of course, it screwed up and got screwed- but most economists know that it can happen in practice, given the right coniditions.
I checked NSI's site, and they seem to be linking a lot to an entity called Great Domains where you can purchase already registered domain names. What is greatdomains.com's relationship with NSI ? Does NSI own them or part of them ? If anyone finds an expired domain name on there, that would explain a lot !!
Proponents of domain names claim that it makes business easier to find. They say that it's easier to type "http://www.mybusiness.com/" than "http://www.myserviceprovider.net/~mybusiness" but fail to mention that it's even easier to go to a search engine and type in keywords for what you're looking for.
A similar thing is happening down in Palm Bay, the next town over. A Chevrolet dealer bought the old Builder's Square when it closed and wants to re-open the place as an auto dealership. Currently there's only one dealership in Palm Bay; they'd be the second.
Our local paper is reporting that the dealer wants the name of the road that the site is on changed to "Chevrolet Avenue" or somesuch, reasoning that people would be more able to find their lot. Other people on the street are opposed to it; they're not involved with auto sales. Somebody even wrote the paper demanding that the street they live on be changed to their last name so that friends and relatives would more easily find their house!
Both cases-- domain names and street names-- entirely miss the point. There are better methods than everyone having their own domain: register with the big search engines and have meaningful data in the META tags! Since there is a (large but) limited number of meaningful domain names, that means that they're a scarce resource. If people want to speculate on their value, what's wrong with that? Do you get mad when people "squat" on their investment portfolios? I mean, how dare they hold on to their stock certificates, waiting for them to go up in value when you want and deserve them more!
The whole domain name fetish also is contradictory to the ideals of the "web," where everything is interconnected with links. If your site is useful, people will link to it. If people need to find you, they'll do a search.
That said, if NSI is holding onto names that have expired and should be available again, I would liken that to insider trading. The broker is paid his commission for doing his job; it's unethical for him to hold the merchandise hostage! Imagine going to a real estate agent in a town peppered with "for sale" signs and him telling you that nothing's available!
Kids, don't try this at home. I learned this same lesson the hard way myself. The next time the situation came up, I simply had my new registrar (verio) transfer the domain from NSI to them while it was still active. No problemo. Of course, this was a while back, so perhaps it was before NSI got completely up to speed on it obstructionism.
Simply regulate the industry so that nobody's allowed to sell a domain name for more than, say $35.
.biz, .sex, .bank, etc. They can (and probably will) learn a lot from the usenet-style naming conventions before long. wellsfargo.bank is just as easy to remember as wellsfargo.com.
Goodbye capitalism, hello communism.
it sure seems like it would cut out the majority of the dirtbags involved in domain reselling.
There are much better ways to do that without requiring the U.S. government to get involved in price-fixing.
The first problem to solve is Network Solutions holding on to domain names after they are no longer being paid. This is simply a legal matter. They have no right to hold onto those domain names. Their job is to facilitate the sale of domain names to people and companies, and to run the root DNS servers. They should have no control over who gets to buy the domain names, I think that's clear.
Second problem -- cybersquatters. It's similar to real estate. Instead of predicting where the next major boom is going to be, and buying all that land, 'squatters try to predict the hot names on the internet. The difference is that it is cheaper to squat a domain name than a piece of real estate. So what happens in the real world when a land squatter has bought up all the available land in an area, and wants a price the market considers "too high"? Simple... either the price comes down so the market will buy, or the market GOES ELSEWHERE. In the case of domain names, this means the market puts pressure on other top-level domains, e.g.
And finally, technological innovations will eventually wipe out the cybersquatters just as it created them. If I still have to type "slashdot.org" in a stupid web browser in three years, I'll eat my hat.
"Hello Search Engine. View Slashdot."
WHAMMO.
So please, let's not get the government involved in yet another area of our lives.
-thomas
"And like that
A while ago, a couple people mentioned that someone had taken my domain name and was selling it. It turns out that, not being pronouncable, PRJC is a common misspelling, and these bastards are squatting on it, along with nearly every other imaginable combination of four letters. I sent them an email asking if they'd be willing to sell PRJC, thinking maybe I'd throw $100 or maybe even $200 at it... more than ten times what they probably paid for it in their bulk purchasing. They wanted $2000. They were willing to entertain "reasonable" offers, which more or less means four digits.
Lately, I've been doing a little bit of looking at the web logs, and it looks like the traffic comes from more or less three places:
- Search Engines: vast majority of visitors leave quickly
- Links: this how people who really are interested in the site usually find us
- Archiver Programs: a lot of people run programs like Teleport Pro to grab a complete copy of the site
From that, I'd suggest that MCMay has a valuable point that search engines' results are much more important than the domain name, links from other sites are the most valuable. Fortunately, we get quite a few links because I've spent years slowly building up quite a number of pages with lots of info.In the last several months, we've started selling parts, circuit boards and kits for a couple the projects, and it certainly seems like the best way to spend money to promote the site is with an affiliate program. I'll probably end up doing a bit of cgi coding sometime in the next several months and add something like this. Even if we end up sending out $100/month (if we actually sold enough stuff in a month to pay that much, I could quit my day job and work on the web site full time!).... that'd be a lot better use of money than giving it to those damn squatters.
So, dear reader, if you've got any experience setting up one of these affiliate programs or you've had good or bad experience participating in them, please drop me a message with your experiences.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Baloney.. This will allow people trying to register names for a valid use to actually get the names they want.
Right; and domain squatters are people, and they're trying to register the names that they want, for a use that NetSol considers valid.
I didn't say this was or wasn't a good thing, I merely commented that it wouldn't fix the problem that particular poster suggested it would.
-
Even *if* you can get NSI to release a domain after it's expired Tucows will register it the moment it becomes available if it is a decent name. They pick out all the good names and then register them. You can either pay them the $700 they ask for it or go through the dispute procedure (Minimum $1500) if you feel that it rightfully belongs to you or you accidentally let it expire. There should be a rule that Domain registrars can't use their inside information to resell domains.
I had a domain w/NetworkSolutions and wanted to re-buy it with another company because they were ripping me off. So I let the site expire and guess what, i can't get it now. Bastards. I Just want to go postal on network solutions' ass
I registered gordonjcp.co.uk with freenetname.co.uk. Reading their agreement, it said that they will hold onto the name until it expires, unless I pay them around £80.
Fair enough.
What I didn't realise is that when I moved house (and along with it, a new phone number) my dial-up account from freenetname (the only way to pick up mail from it) was hosed, because my caller id didn't match.
No way to change it.
when a for profit company is in charge of something that should be independent, such as domain name registration.
NSI, like any other company has to make money, moreover profits. Since they are in control of all of the domains, they can hang onto the good ones (or ones who's ownership has expired, such in this case) and resell them for a higher price, thus making a profit and helping the company.
Imagine if Marvel Comics printed 10,000 copies of a hot first issue comic book. It then released 5,000 onto the market, and kept 5,000 for itself. Then, when the comic was selling for $300 each, Marvel sold the 5,000 it kept for $300 each.
Every business has to make money, and maximize its profits. But the way NSI is going about it, is at least shady, and at worst illegal.
I agree with the concept that NSI should be forced to give up those domain names. And I do think that joining is a good idea. Although, if you join a class action, the likely recovery is in the pennies, while all the money is received by the named plaintiff and the attorneys, so keep that in mind. But, on reading the complaint, I found a fairly major problem. In order to have an actual case, the plaintiffs have to prove that an action or lack of action by the defendant caused them harm, and that the defendant had a duty to act to prevent this harm. I see proof of harm, and that defendant (NSI) caused the harm. But this complaint does not allege a duty on NSI's part to give up those domain names. The closest it comes is by stating: "NSI is restraining trade ... despite the fact that NSI disclaims rights in domain names." (Statement of Facts, Paragraph 44). This is not enough to establish that the NSI has a duty to release those names. I expect that NSI's answer, which is not available online as far as I can tell, focuses on the fact that they have no duty to be prompt, or to release domain names.
I do think that a case could be made by the other registrars that the NSI's actions is an interference with their business. But it is much harder for an individual to take on the NSI, and somehow prove the obligation to release domain names.
Thalia
This is not legal advice, so don't even think it.
if one's IQ exceeds the one of the plastic pot plant in NSI's main lobby, he/she has no chance of ever being hired by NSI...
We've been transferring hundreds of domains in the past year and have been using their fancy online forms for dozens of NIC handle contact changes. Guess what 3 times these actions went smoothly. THREE TIMES. Three times out of hundreds.
Whenever one of our less experienced clients decides that he/she needs to make some changes, we usually advise them to get things rolling, get the dreaded NIC tracking number and then immediately start spamming NSI on a daily base.
For that purpose we use a variety of *real* NSI email addresses on a rotating base.
Per average it still takes about ten days four emails and two faxes to get any changes done.
So, for the heck of it, we transfered one unused domain name back to NSI, just to see what would happen [well, okay, the team was heavily betting as well].
Guess what? Transferring *to* NSI took 4 hours!
So, it's quite obvious, if there is money in it for them they have no staff shortages and the system works smoothly. If there is no money in it, then they make it as difficult as possible to deter people from changing.
Talking about abusing monopoly powers...
For a short time we even had accounts with NSI because we hoped that things would work more smoothly. Far from it! Our accountants are still in a clinch with their accountants about some missing funds...
Just a reminder of the finer workings of the 'Great Equalizer' - which unfortunately tends to fail to reconscile.
They (NSI) are given the right to sell the domain names, as the legal contractor that the US has appointed. By accepting that task they submitted to a set of rules and regulations that should preventany abuse of this kind. Ofcourse I'm no lawyer so i totally have no idea how far these regulations do in fact go, but obviously blocking names from being sold because they sound extra-profitable to the registration company should be in there somewhere..
So I think (& hope) that eyeondomain.com has a good chance of winning this case.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
weatherchannel.com was owned by a squatter up to a week ago :)
The "real" Weather Channel finally got a judgment and got rights to the domain though. Check the whois: http://www.easywho.com/?domain=weatherchannel.com
Hammer of Truth
Any thoughts?
================
================
Microsoft is not the answer, Microsoft is the question. The answer is "no".
-p4
(c) All Rights Released.
That way, next time Microsoft forgets to renew Hotmail, I can snatch it away from them and instantly get millions of hits a day!
------
Put them against the wall.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Kenny.com and kenny.org are also registered.
www.kenny.com appears dead.
www.kenny.org has "Please upload your homepage and name it index.html. If you have any further questions, please contact: Support@icom.com"
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Now, they seem to do a pretty good job of running the root name servers. The problem is that this position gives them an advantage over the other registrars. For one, they are guaranteed to have income. No matter how badly they screw up, or how much market share they lose, they will still have money rolling in because all of their competition has to pay them. In addition, as in this case, they can arbitrarily snap up domains without having to actually pay for them. Any other registrar that wanted to play this game would have to fork over cash to NSI to fund it.
What I think ICANN should dictate is this. One or more companies will be given contracts to register domain names, similar to what is done now. A second group of one or more companies will be given contracts to run the root servers. People who register a domain will pay the first group. The first group will pay some fee to the second group for each domain they want served. The contracts for both groups will stipulate that they are not allowed to own, be owned by, partner with, or be the same as any company in the other group.
The abuse that is happening with the current system is out of hand. NSI is acting like a greedy spoiled brat who is causing untold amounts of grief for thousands of hard working admins out there. Unfortunately, with the current system, they can and will keep doing it. In fact, I would expect their behavior to actually get worse as their market share declines. As they lose customers, past behavior indicates that they will abuse their power more to make up for the lost profits.
Think, there are perhaps hundreds of millions of small business on the web. If these were storefront businesses, could the Sign Police come around once every 2 years and tell them that because they have a really cool sign and buisness name, that it will cost them $xxxxx.xx dollars to keep their mom and pop store open for another two years? I seriously doubt it. I hope the courts rule in favor of eyeondomain.com and everyone else involved in the Class Action Suite. The Intellectual Property that represents a domain, particularly one that is registered to a for-profit site, is the sole creation of the registrant. NSI had nothing to do with thinking of a name, creating a business model, designing the site, etc. They are there only to provide a service, and nothing more. The Internet Chamber of Commerce if you will.
Good luck to everyone at eyeondomain.com and company.
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
But this then sounds like the lawfirm has a more important goal in mind: point out the fundamental flaws of NSI, such as retroactive changes in User Agreements, poor customer service, etc etc, such that NSI is penaltized by the court system for their actions. The auctioning of expired names is merely a tip of the iceberg of abused that NSI has done for years.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I tried transferring my domain to a new registrar BEFORE the expiration date -- in fact it still hasn't expired -- I just got word that there is a unexplained "hold" on it, and the registration can not be transferred!
I've seen enough. It's time to form an unruly mob!
In late August I became a Tucow OpenSRS Registration service provider and accordingly transfered my domains from Network Solutions to Tucows.
m l...
One domain transfer was specifically completed on 9/22/00. Part of the transfer process is that the new registrar contacts the old registrar to notify them of the request and asks for their approval. (Is the domain paid for and not caught up in a dispute?) Network Solutions ACKNOWLEDGED this transfer request, allowing it go thorugh.
Now, a full two and a half months later, I get a nasty "FINAL NOTICE" bill from Network Solutions for the same domain that they acknowledged the transfer of. The envelope even has big bold writing on the front "Urgent: Your domain name is vital. Don't lose it." I'm not that stupid, and am not about to give Netsol another dime for a domain they're not even the registrar of, but what about non-techs who don't know any better?
I think whomever's going after Netsol with a class action suit should go after them for this shady billing scheme. I'd be willing to bet that at least 30% of the folks who get one of Netsol's bogus 'FINAL NOTICE' invoices pays it even though they've transfered the domain to a different registrar.
If you're looking for more info on duped out of $35 yourself, a long discussion about Netsol's hoaky billing system has taken place on the OpenSRS mailing lists. See http://www.opensrs.org/archives/mailing.index.sht
-Abe
No, I'm thinking of affadavits. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e). On motions for summary judgement, parties can offer affadavits setting forth "such facts as would be admissible in evidence" (emphasis added). Plus, they are also of great weight when negotiating a settlement before trial...
As far as their value in a trial goes, you are correct.
I have bad news for these guys too. Expired domains are indeed available for use. Recently, I purchased use of badasshosting.com which was previously in use by someone else and had expired. There was no problem in registration and the prices I paid were the going rates for dns regs. This is not the only one I have obtained for myself or a client that was previously expired.
Maybe Network Solutions is not presenting a level playing field for their services to everyone. If that is the case then I could see some attorneys being able to nail them on it. (more power to 'em if they can actually prove this)
I can't really see that happening though as I have seen and purchased domain names from very large lists of expired and availables. The fact that those lists exist is not going to help the people in the suit. I wish them luck. NSI can be a bunch of hardasses to deal with nevermind get on the phone ala AOL back in '95 (or was it '96?)
Hey maybe there is a case there: AOL got beat up for charging customers outrageous fees and not having a real method for customers to contact them to dispute the charges. If I remember correct they lost that class action suit bigtime...
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
By contrast, the "Yellow Pages" will also come around every year and ask if you'd like a Really Cool Sign in their Yellow Pages, and they'll drop you if you don't pay, but nobody really minds because people can find you even if you're not advertising there (though they're an almost mission-critical advertising location for many types of business.) Also, nobody thinks they're thugs, even if they do use those "Dragnet"-themed radio ads on occasion.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Advantages of NSI over joker.com:
At NSI, someone can list me as the technical contact for their domain, which gives me access to make changes (such as updating nameserver information), instead of my having to get the owner of the domain to make the change. Joker has a seperate technical contact, but the contact information is ignored completely. They just use the e-mail address and password of the person who registered the domain.
At NSI, if I move a DNS server, I can update the host information, and all domains that use that nameserver will automatically update. With Joker, I have to create a new host with the new information, and then update every single domain one at a time (see the previous paragraph).
Other than that, joker.com rocks.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Register.com all the way, baby!
Got Rhinos?