Slashdot Mirror
The Sex.Com Story Continues
wherley writes "This story at news.com tells the tale of the lucrative sex.com domain, the incompetent Verisign transfer per forged request, and the $65 million dollars in damages hanging in the breeze."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Or perhaps a floodgate of lawsuits where Verisign royally screwed up and did nothing to try to rectify the situation.
There is a difference from being down for a little while, and giving someone a domain that you paid for and registered. Then saying, "ooopps...well here is your registration fee back."
Fight Spammers!
I'd think that they can be held liable - not for $65 mill, perhaps, but let's face it: if not for their crummy system, and for really dropping the ball as far as security and verification are concerned, this never would have happened.
I've worked in banks for years, and I know if someone comes in claiming to be Ms. Smith, then steals all of the real Ms. Smith's money/safety deposit box items/etc, the bank is held accountable for fucking up. I don't see a big difference here.
Verisign should pay a fair and equitable amount for their mistake, improve the system (if they haven't already) so it never happens again, and go on.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
This is an interesting question. Is a domain name physical property?
I think that it is. The line between physical and intellectual property is very fuzzy.
At the same time, should a company be punished for responding to a letter that looked official?
I suppose that depends on it. I think that if a lucrative domain name sends a letter asking for a transfer, the domain controller should be contacted. Seeing that he apparently wasn't, I think that the company is responsible.
"Who am I" and "Why are we here" are not the problems.
The problem is when someone asks "Why are they here."
As much as I do not like Verisign, I cannot see how Verisign can be held responsible for the transfer. After all, this was a forged transfer.
I can see how they could be held responsible for negligence in correcting the matter in a non-expeditious manner....
Anyway, there is a potential for a world of hurt, especially if a DNS server is considered to be a legitimate and unerring source of information linking a domain name with owner information. The liability would be incredible, as would the potential for mega-lawsuits!
It took them almost 4 weeks and 7-8 calls their CS to configure my .ms domain to point to my own DNS servers. Their CSRs are clueless drones and you absolutely, positively cannot talk to somebody higher than a CS supervisor. Normally, I would use a different registrar (domaindiscover.com is decent) but there aren't many that can do .ms domains.
For what I care, they can be slapped with the 65mil damages, that will make my day...
Just my $0.02...
If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
How can a domain name not be property, when the registration process allows you the EXCLUSIVE use of the domain, and a fee is charged for the transaction? Sure, I can't touch it, or put it in a jar, but that does not mean it isn't mine if I paid for it - and continue to renew the domain name when it comes up for renewal.
Is this another licensing thingy, where you are not the owner of the property, just being allowed to license it from the true owner - in which case it is still owned by someone, and therefore is property, or perhaps rental of database space? What about IP rights, would those apply - again, implying the domain name is property.
I would guess there is some slippery lawyer interpertation that will be introduced, and hope someone can explain it to me...
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
Net domains and real property have more in common than difference:
1. Both are fixed - only one entity may occupy a particular "parcel" at a time.
2. There is a fixed supply of each (excluding adding stupid TLDs, and Hawaii)
3. Whether you "own" either is really just a description of what you own, stored in a central database which can be verified by a third party.
4. In general, any changes you make or sites you build are just superficial - they may add or detract from the value, but the basis of the value is more dependent on the site (location, location, location). Once you relinquicsh your license/deed, the next owner may keep or remove your additions, but the space hasn't really changed.
Of course, there are exceptions, however...
Owning real estate is just ownership of a document which has the force of law allowing you limited use within a prescribed boundary. Nearly identical to a namespace.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Let me create an analogy for a minute. Let's say I'm some prankster, and I call up the Local Telco here (Verizon) and say I want to foward the number of IBM to my home phone instead. Now, if Verizon were as stupid as Verisign, all I'd have to do is fax them a change order on IBM stationery, and it would go through and all of IBM's business would come to my home phone. Don't you think IBM would hold the phone company responsible if it took them a long time to resolve the situation (or even let it happen in the first place!)
Point is -- Verisign still thinks it's the wild west out here on the net, and they don't provide customer service of any kind. Furthermore, they are completely incapable of providing the services they offer. Criminal negligence is prosecutable. The fact that it's easier to change IBM's domian than it is to change IBM's phone number shows the maturity of the phone company -- they've already had to deal with pranks like that for decades.
And the fact that Verisign has no provision for knowing how to deal with these situations, and furthermore doesn't follow standard business practices (such as those provided by a phone company) makes them responsible for both "letting it happen in the first place" and "dragging their heels to fix the problem once it became clear what happened".
Just my 2 cents.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
What are you talking about, most people don't read the articles? You have it exactly backwards. Most people I mention Slashdot to read the articles, but never post, or even look at the comments. This explains why the top story on the front page can have "0 of 1 comment" comments and already be Slashdotted - most people are just clicking on the article link.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
I would say that VeriSign should not be held in strict liability, where everything that goes wrong is their fault. However, I do think they should be liable for negligence. They should be held up to standards the same way that banks or real estate escrow companies are.
As it is now, you have almost no recourse, and they have little incentive to perform. I had a heck of a time getting a domain moved to a new host last year. Their system wasn't working for me and there was no other way to contact them. They were ignoring faxes and they don't have a customer service phone number.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
They say that "a domain name isn't tangible property."
Uh huh. Tell that to people who wind up on the wrong end of 'cybersquatter' lawsuits, like this guy.
If a domain name isn't tangible property, then doesn't this ruling somehow negate or diminish the concept of a trademark, which is also in most cases just a name?
If a big corporation can sue for alleged misuse of their name or dilution of their trademark, then I would say that a name certainly can be tangible property and that the ruling that stated it isn't is flawed as all hell. Or is this just another case of monied corporations having rights that citizens don't?
~Philly
Does anyone else find it slightly ironic that VeriSign (you know, the company that markets itself as the electronic ID validator) is now responsible for damages resulting from a forged letter? I realize it was Network Solutions at the time, but this can't be good for their image....
Then again, they could always spin it and say, "See? See why you need to pay our monopoly^W company $xxx.95 for a VeriSign-certified PGP key?"
moto411.com