Slashdot Mirror


DNS Stressed From Financial Maneuverings

jcatcw writes "The Domain Name System is showing signs of being out of control. Automated software systems are being used to re-register large batches of expired domain names. In addition, speculators are using a loophole in the registration process that lets domains be tested for their potential profitability as pay-per-click advertising sites during a free five-day "tasting" period."

196 comments

  1. Why is this news? by djrok212 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can someone explain to me why this is even news? Seems to me the domain name system has been out of control for years, this is nothing new.

    1. Re: Why is this news? by rs79 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was news 2 years ago when it first started happening.

      ICANN which (on paper) "measures community consensus and implements it as policy" is the entity that had to approve the policies that lets this happen.

      No domain expires any more, the registrars snap them up on principle, try them out and if they get one click in the "don't have to pay yet" grace period then they keep the domain. Very very few, if any domains actually expire back into the free pool.

      What strikes me as hysterical is the people that went on to become ICANN accused the alternative root people 10 years ago of wanting to do exactly this. To be honest we hadn't even thought of it. We just wants to see no centralized single-point-of-failure control over the dns.

      I note with irony itoldyouso.com is taken by squatter.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    2. Re: Why is this news? by beckerist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      2 examples, both were websites I used to own:
      allpopcorn.com
      scientistscanvas.com

      Both sites I owned, ran, updated...the problem is, I never had "automatically renew" (see: automatically charge my credit card) turned on. Both sites expired one January afternoon, and before that Friday (my payday), they were both picked up by link farms. ALSO, keep in mind I used Yahoo! Domains (now Yahoo! Small Business) for these sites. Now, I use GoDaddy, which will keep a temporary hold on them to allow for my renewal (which Yahoo! never did.) If anyone can get me these sites back (without having to pay the hundreds of dollars for them that they are each asking!), by all means!!!

    3. Re: Why is this news? by cortana · · Score: 5, Informative
      Why the hell aren't the .com/.net/.org registries run sensibly, i.e. in the same way that .uk is run by Nominet? It is practically impossible to lose control of a .uk domain once you have it.

      After such a domain is detagged, Nominet try to contact thet registrant to confirm that they no longer want to use the domain. Only if the registrant confirms this, or fails to settle an invoice if one exists within 30 days, does the domain become 'suspended'. After 60 further days, the domain is cancelled and can be registered by someone else.

      Nominet even make it a policy to dissuade domain spammers from registering expired domains:

      Why does Nominet not publish exact dates for when domain names are cancelled?

      Giving an exact date would compromise Nominet's policy of allocating domain names on a first-come, first-served basis. It could lead to an increase in speculative applications for domain names, which may result in an abuse of Nominet's registration automated systems.
    4. Re: Why is this news? by miller60 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it wasn't even new when folks started noticing it 2 years ago. It actually started as early as 2001, as documented in a history of name tasting posted by veteran domain professional Frank Schilling over at Circle ID. Changes in 2004 made it easier, which is when the huge volume kicked in. But the earlier activity established a precedent for the practice.

    5. Re: Why is this news? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Go work for an 'accredited' registrar, you can initiate transfers and depending on THEIR registrar, or you can go work for their registrar. It will even go automatically (even though the 'protection' might be enabled), we used to have a system that even would aggressively try to register domains that would expire that day (around 23.50, it would iterate through the list very, very fast). We once had a skew with our clock and we got blocked since we tried registering 1000's of domains in the middle of the day.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re: Why is this news? by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Uhm... it's been going on since 97. It's just easier now because of policy (but harder because everybody is doing it).

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    7. Re: Why is this news? by Pope · · Score: 1

      I've never had auto-renew on any of my domains either: I'm automaticaly emailed a reminder 60 days before they expire, and again at 30 days before they expire. Probably again as they come close, but I've never needed anything other than the 30 day reminder.

      It takes less than 2 minutes for me to login to my hosting company control panel and renew for x many years. What's the big problem? It sounds like your resgitrar/hosting company sucks, or you're lazy. Always give yourself 2 years' breathing room on a domain renewal.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    8. Re: Why is this news? by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      It's not about being news, it's about presenting it in a way that communicates the danger to the people.

      "Everybody RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! The Domain Name System is out of control! Bolt the doors shut, cannibalize your pets, and hug your children good bye!"

      That ought to do it.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    9. Re: Why is this news? by Isofarro · · Score: 1

      Nominet even make it a policy to dissuade domain spammers from registering expired domains:
      This is a red herring. A spammer (or domain squatter) know that a domain name will expire in a certain period, so they just run a cron job to check the status of the domain every 15 minutes or so, and register it if they find its available. That's what they do with expiring .coms. Yes its a bit riskier with the .co.uk of another spammer sneaking in, but a spammer will be able to grab the domain name before a good faith buyer can, just as easily as in the .com arena.
    10. Re: Why is this news? by qnetter · · Score: 1

      Nominet's sensible policy flies in the face of most American registrars, who believe that domains exist as a means for them and speculators to make money, and the fact that they might be used on the net to locate useful information and should be treated as a worthwhile asset of the registrant is an annoyance.

    11. Re: Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nominet's sensible policy flies in the face of most American registrars, who believe that domains exist as a means for them and speculators to make money,

      I've registered .uk addresses before, as I recall they charged a fortune and mad us jump through hoops to prove we were worthy. I'm quite certain they made plenty of money running this service

      Note this is not a complaint. If a .com cost $100+ to register, the majority of speculators would flee. Maybe keep a throwaway TLD at $10 for "the people" so the speculators could keep their businesses alive.

    12. Re: Why is this news? by moggie_xev · · Score: 1

      Currently I pay 8.50 every two years which is 19 dollars every two years. I remember it being 50 pounds back in 2000.

    13. Re: Why is this news? by Anaerin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Odd. To register a .co.uk costs £10 for me (A UK resident): http://www.freeparking.co.uk/. And I didn't have to jump through any hoops to get it (Create Username/Password/Address/UK Credit Card). In comparison, a .com costs around £30. If you want a difficult one, how about a .ca? You have to submit a (valid) Canadian Social Security Number to get one of those. Or a .ac (Which cost a fortune - £90 last time I tried, which was back in 2001 when I got 240v.ac (And let lapse - I had more domains than you could shake a stick at back then).

    14. Re: Why is this news? by Elbethil · · Score: 1

      I've owned two .ca domains in the past, and when they expired, they were left alone. I've never seen any squatters on .ca domains, or any of the other country-specific ones.

    15. Re: Why is this news? by Dan541 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Try registering a .com.au or .net.au you need to provide trademark registration info.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    16. Re: Why is this news? by ameoba · · Score: 1

      You seem to missing something - squatters & speculators aside, the .com registration market is run by high-volume, low-margin resellers. So many people are desperate to save a buck or two by shaving off 'service' that a service-oriented registar, like you describe, would get eaten alive by GoDaddy and all the other more cut-rate outfits.

      I forget the name but, in the last few months some large discount domain reseller folded & screwed a bunch of their customers. Hearing something like this is like hearing somebody complain about having problems getting service when buying a Dell - how can you be surprised?

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    17. Re: Why is this news? by cortana · · Score: 1

      Well, Nominet is the registry, not the registrar. They are analogous to Verisign rather than GoDaddy.

      Anyone can join Nominet and resell domains as a registrar. The usual price for a .uk domain is £2.50 per year, compared to about £9 for a .com!

    18. Re: Why is this news? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Why the hell aren't the .com/.net/.org registries run sensibly, i.e. in the same way that .uk is run by Nominet?
       
      Money.

    19. Re: Why is this news? by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "so they just run a cron job to check the status of the domain every 15 minutes or so"

      Uh, no.

      in the 97/98 timeframe it was like, once every five seconds. A year later it was as fast and as hard as you could do it. This caused problems when enough people did it that they revamped (ie,legitimized) the system to give everybody a fair slice.

      In actual fact, being a "registrar" means you get to buy one of these time slices.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  2. Timely! by Southpaw018 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This actually just happened to my organization two weeks ago. A .com version of one of the .org names we hold was expiring, and we did the backorder thing with Godaddy to try to acquire it since there's really no other way to even have a remote chance at an expiring name.

    We got a notice that the name was re registered within a few seconds of its release, and Godaddy had not acquired it on our behalf. The backorder thing also came with monitoring service that notifies us of any changes to the domain's whois.

    Three days later, I received a notification that the domain's whois had changed again. I figured the new owners were setting it up for their use, but instead it was changed to my info. We suddenly had the name in our account.

    --
    ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
    1. Re:Timely! by rossz · · Score: 1

      I've been trying to get a domain for several years now. It's my family name, but it's being sat on by a link farm and they keep renewing it. It's a .org so it shouldn't be used for its current purpose. The .com is owned by a fancy hotel of the same name, quite legitimate. The .net is owned by a very distant cousin. I want to use the .org for the family geneolgy. Oh, well.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    2. Re:Timely! by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I have my .org, but I don't have my .com, which I would really like for my business (which bears my name). Unfortunately, it is farmed out as a pay-per-address email server (which should be serviced by .name now). I don't think I'll ever have a chance at getting it.

      Sadly, I did check the registration before is was registered, but didn't have access to the servers required to reserve it (this was back before you could buy such things on the open market).

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Timely! by Metasquares · · Score: 1

      Did you try the .name? That's what it's there for, after all :)

    4. Re:Timely! by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      Have you looked to see if .info is available? I think its probably the tld that something such as your family history should be on.

      I believe .org is supposed to be reserved for non-profits organizations.

      --
      I got nothin'
    5. Re:Timely! by JoeF · · Score: 1

      The exact same thing happened to me recently.
      I was also using Godaddy's backorder tool.

    6. Re:Timely! by Fozzyuw · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it is farmed out as a pay-per-address email server (which should be serviced by .name now).

      I hear you. My family names .com is like this too. I have the .net (I use to have the .org, but gave it up and it's since been snapped up). Sadly, I was like a month or two too late to get the .com. Well, if I ever wanted it as an email address, I know where to go. hehe.

      --
      "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
    7. Re:Timely! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I thought. Back when I registered my .com and .net, I didn't register the .org because I wasn't a chartity. Now that I want to have a charitable arm that basically does the same thing but routes the profits to charity, I go andd find out that a business not related to me has the .org. Actually, it is simply advertising for a variety of things including apartments and dating services. No mention that any of it is nonprofit.

      In a barely related issue, I went to Network Solutions website and apparently, anyone can register an .eu.

    8. Re:Timely! by rossz · · Score: 1

      .info is so completely overrun by spammers that I don't want anything to do with it. I've seen wholesale blacklisting of the entire tld by some of the more agressive administrators (.biz is even worse).

      I hadn't considered .name.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    9. Re:Timely! by robpoe · · Score: 1

      Even stupider,

      I owned my last name .com (poe) WAAAAY back in the mid 90's. Someone spoofed an email from me and stole it out from under me -- nobody wanted to do anything about it ..

      And it sits .. link farming away since ..

      They offered to sell it to me ... for $45k

      --
      = Grow a brain...
    10. Re:Timely! by auntfloyd · · Score: 2, Informative
      I believe .org is supposed to be reserved for non-profits organizations.

      FALSE. FALSE. FALSE.

      This has NEVER been true. Why do people insist on spreading this lie around?

      Please read the RFC before you continue to propagate this utter nonsense. In fact, I'll even quote it for you:

      ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for
                        organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-
                        government organizations may fit here.


      Please point out the reference to non-profits in that descriptions. .ORG is for any organization. Non-profit status has nothing to do with it. And .NET? Not for ISPs either! Who knew???

      Read the RFC, it will enlighten you, and you can cease with your pointless lies and slander of .ORG owners.
    11. Re:Timely! by phredgreen · · Score: 1

      understand the policies on an expiring domain are incredibly strange. the registry will automatically renew the domain for another year, and give the registrar 45 days to make it active. after that, the registry themselves has a redemption period, after that the domain is released. in the meantime, your backorder notifies you of the extra time, you panic, confusion ensues, and frustration inevitably sets in, until you get that mystery notice later letting you know of the successful capture. i'm in biz. i won't say how, but it's very interesting reading people's horror/confusion/"the registrar ate my domain" stories.

    12. Re:Timely! by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      Hooray for quoting out of context? The RFC states that .com is for commercial entities, and it eliminates a lot of other exceptions with .edu and .net, leaving *mostly* not-for-profit organizations to go in .org. Do you have any counterexamples?

  3. Cybersquatting Search Tool by Graham+MacRobie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here is a slick, free typosquatting search tool that lets you find and explore the kind of problematic domains mentioned in the article. Try playing with the various search options - it's addictive. For instance, there are 141 registered domains that contain the word "slashdot", and 199 more that are a one-character misspelling of "slashdot". That's within just 4 TLDs.

    The firm also offers a novel service that allows companies to recover lost traffic without necessarily filing lots of lawsuits.

    Full disclosure - I am CitizenHawk's president. That being said, I can say we are intimately involved in tracking DNS updates daily - and I agree. Tasting is a serious problem that threatens to push the DNS system beyond its limits.

    1. Re:Cybersquatting Search Tool by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Cool tool, but I can't do a comparison search for my domain grc4.org. :-/

  4. DNS != Registrar System by notlisted · · Score: 5, Informative

    This article seems not to understand that the DNS system and the Registar system are completely separate entities.. The mass registrations are done through the various registrars for .com, .net, .info, etc., with current estimates that there are are about 5 million domains being "tasted" at any given time. This number is fairly constant so it's not producing spikes or a significant increase in DNS usage at any one time.

    1. Re:DNS != Registrar System by Tacvek · · Score: 1
      Well, AIUI, the Root domain is in the control of ICAAN. The domain registries (NICs) have more or less full control over the top-level domain they control, subject to any restrictions ICANN places on them (which can be very extensive in some cases). (In a few cases, such as .arpa and .int, the IANA is the registry, and the IANA is part of ICANN). Some domains, such as .com, .org, .net, etc have an elaborate system of registrars, which is really just a mess. Often it means that the domain that you "own", is not owned by you at all, but by the registrar, or other intermediary.

      What I find odd about the registrar system is that in theory its purpose is to cut down the number of organizations ICANN has to deal with in terms of domain registration. In reality, ICANN has no involvement with the domain registration process. the Registry (such as Verisign for .com) is the one who would need to deal with the end customers. So this is a needless layer of corruption and abstraction. That is especially true considering that Verisign is not just a NIC, but also a registrar. So they need to deal with end customers anyway. That is one of the reasons that I would prefer to buy a domain in a ccTLD, rather than a gTLD. I definately prefer to work directly with the NIC, than with one of a long chain of intermediaries.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  5. No kidding by djupedal · · Score: 1

    "showing signs of being out of control"

    I'll say. A domain I owned expired recently and was bought up before I could repurchase. There is nothing special about this particular domain name and I can't imagine anyone wanting it except to use it for resale profit on pure speculation only.

    Nice system. Gets me loads of spam and doesn't offer shit otherwise.

    1. Re:No kidding by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "A domain I owned expired recently and was bought up before I could repurchase."

      There's a grace period. It's like, 15 or 30 days or something.

      I have half a dozen domains with buttloads of actual content. I'm lazy and stupid and they're always expiring. Somebody allways calls or emails after a few days or so reminds me and I renew the errant domain.

      Use it or lose it.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    2. Re:No kidding by djupedal · · Score: 1

      "Somebody allways calls or emails after a few days or so reminds me and I renew the errant domain."

      Millions of domains and you think they all follow your example and experience? Oh but if it were that simple :)

      Contact information goes stale. Changes are difficult if not impossible without help from the original supporting registration agent. Expiration tracking agents and grab tools cost more than the price of the domain. The reasons behind a less than happy outcome are varied and real. Good for you that you can get along without issues - here's hoping you never get tripped up.

      In my case, the hosting agent went offline and mute months before the domain expired. I had no control to get in and update my current contact information. There was no active website or email server. There was no one to make calls or send email reminders. No active link to me as the owner.

      The outfit that snatched it up sent out robot emails to everyone it could find with the same last name, saying the domain was available, from them, for a fee, of course. A family member got wind of the expiration, registration grab and offer to sell and eventually passed it on to me. All within 7 days of the expiration. If I want it back, it will cost at least ten times the price of a routine renewal. What should have been a simple process is, as stated, a process that is out of control and has been taken over by profiteers.

    3. Re:No kidding by kimvette · · Score: 1

      There's a grace period. It's like, 15 or 30 days or something.


      There is supposed to be, but God help you if you have domains with RegisterFly or eNom and they expire.
      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  6. I had not heard of the "testing" period. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And I completely disagree with it.

    If you want to test the domain, then LEASE the domain name. None of this automated click-count crap for free while other people who would USE the domain name wait to see if it will ever be available.

    1. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. I don't understand why this is even offered. The only reason you would want to know how many hits your potential site would get based on its domain name alone is because you were counting on accidental traffic for all or the majority of your income. This pretty much means you're a squatter looking to capitalize on ad impressions. If you're a legitimate business looking to start a web presence, you're going to just buy a domain that pertains to your business, and ADVERTISE it. Then, people who are interested will visit the domain you have advertised.

      I could see offering a trial period if a domain name cost $10,000 or something (and maybe they should), but these days you can buy domain names for pretty much nothing anyway, so a trial period is utterly pointless.

    2. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's an acceptable lease rate though? At $20 a year what should they charge for 5 days? The bigger problem is that they let you test out names at all. Either you want the name or you don't. There's no reason other than typosquatting/domain stealing that it would be a good idea to let people try out a domain name for 5 days.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by nine-times · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, according to the OP, it's not a "testing" period, it's a "tasting" period. But I don't know how you taste a domain, and I sure as hell don't want to know what domains like goatse.cx taste like.

    4. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      yes, but marketing divisions would rather have "someoddmovie.com" instead of "someoddmovie.someoddstudio.com"

    5. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Movie web sites? Does anybody actually go to those? Just about everybody I know goes to apple.com and watches the trailers there. There's no reason to go to 30 different movie sites every month when you can go to 1 and watch previews for all 30 movies.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    6. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People actually care about movie trailers enough to go to 1 website?

    7. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's an acceptable lease rate though? At $20 a year what should they charge for 5 days?

      $20.

      Actually, if you want to rid yourself of domain squatters forever, what is needed is a tiered DNS pricing scheme in which short periods cost MORE than long periods. People who have held a domain name for years should be able to renew it for progressively less, while people registering a domain name should have to pay for more because it requires additional work to set things up on the part of the registrar (even if that work is basically automated). Make the first year $100, the next year $50, the next year $20, the next year $10, and subsequent years $5. The domain squatters would balk because their next renewal of any domain name would cost them $100+, and most of those link sites wouldn't justify that level of payment.

      Of course, this technique would only work for about 90% of domains. Any domain that was worth squatting on for $100 at the time the pricing went into effect would likely remain squatted upon forever. Even still, that would significantly reduce the current pool and would eliminate future squatting (because there are almost zero domains that are likely to be worth $100 to a speculator without some assurance of ROI.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by Pax00 · · Score: 1

      probably about like ass.com..

      oddly enough ass.com is held by a squatter. I am surprised no porn company came up with the money to buy that one.

    9. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One last thing. The free tasting period is really just a "you can get your money back within X days" policy. The fix for this policy is "If you made a mistake, you can change the registration to the correct domain within X days, but you must extend the registration one year at the same time. Allow a one-time exemption for the "maximum 10 years ahead" rule, but in effect, this would mean that typo squatters and domain squatters would be able to shift to a different domain exactly once and then they would be stuck with that domain at a cost of $100 for the first year.

      This would continue to solve the "I made a typo" problem that the testing period attempts to solve without opening the door for abuse as the current system does. As for the "buyer's remorse" problem, if somebody insists on a refund, put the domain name on hold, then make them send the request in writing via certified mail and provide a S.A.S.E. for where the check should be sent. This does two things: 1. It makes it slow enough and expensive enough (over $3 for certified mail + S.A.S.E.) that the current abuse becomes unprofitable. 2. You have their name and mailing address, and thus, can refuse to provide this loophole for them more than once.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      My point applies to more than just movies - its a general "marketing thing" that kinda makes it look (at least to me) like they use these kinds of practices just to consume their corporate budget ("Hey boss, we used all the money you gave us, can we have some more?")

    11. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by MrPeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems to me that the simple fix would be to not allow the entry into the DNS servers until the "tasting" period has passed.

      If the purpose is indeed to allow people to change their minds, fix mistakes, or whatever, then this would not in any way cause them problems.

      If they want to live test, they can set the IP address in their local DNS. Hell, they can do that without even registering.

    12. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      A good proposal, insightful, interesting.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    13. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      if they want a name to match a specific product that they know they are going to release then they can damn well pay for a year in advance like mere mortals do. They'll probablly wan't to keep it for a few years anyway.

      imo 5 days is not enough to build significant new users for a domain so the only use of theese "trials" is to assess how much holdover traffic there is from the sites created by previous owners of the domain.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    14. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >This pretty much means you're a squatter looking to capitalize on ad impressions. If you're a legitimate business

      Who says DNS registrars care about promiting legitimate business or stopping ad click farms? Its pretty much their bread and butter right now. If there's a problem here, then it can be solved by regulating these registrars. Now, considering these registrars are usually ad impression squatters and domain typo resellers themselves, well, dont hold your breath expecting them to regulate themselves.

    15. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by shmlco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No leasing, no tasting, and price a .com domain somewhere from $100 to $1,000 a year to register and maintain. No automated renewals. Registrants need to have a valid address and email address, and be validated similar to what occurs when you try to get a SSL certificate.

      And no squating. If you sitting on that domain name primarily to offer it for sale then it returns to the pool. No parking. No ad/link farms. If you have address.com and you went out of business then you went out of business. Sorry.

      This is why we have Flickr, and Digg, and all of those other "mispelled" domain names. All single words are used up. All three and four and most five letter acronyms are gone. Double-word combinations are getting there. Common words with i or my are few and far between.

      A friend tried to get a .org domain for an open-source project, only to find some company squatting on it, and offering to sell it for $3K. Shouldn't be legal. Names are a finite public resource and, when, no longer needed or abandoned, should be returned to the pool to be reregistered and reused.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    16. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I would very strongly disagree with your proposed pricing. $1,000 per year is ludicrous. Such a fee would ensure that only companies would ever be able to hold domains. I know I sure wouldn't continue paying the registration fees for any of my half dozen open source, non-profit org, education, etc. domains that I pay for every year if I had to spend a grand per year for each of them. I don't think I'd maintain very many of them even at a hundred dollars. The solution for getting rid of squatters is not to make domains so expensive that everybody starts memorizing IP addresses again. :-)

      In fact, I don't think I'd maintain ANY domains if I had do spend a grand apiece per year. I think most small domain owners would be in the same position. Ditto for every open source project out there. Unless your goal is to force everybody to use SourceForge (thus making the risk of a money grab by such companies a much more serious threat due to reduced competition), I don't think this is a very good idea.

      WIth the exception of the pricing, however, I agree with you. And I don't think $100 would be unreasonable for the first year, both to discourage domain squatting and to discourage people from saying "I'm going to create a project. I should go ahead and register the domain just in case I ever get around to releasing something." However, it should not remain at such a high level for very long. Otherwise, it will end up doing more harm than good.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    17. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by Cozminsky · · Score: 1

      I don't think the 5 day grace is in place for the registrants. But more likely the registrars. Mistaken registration with a typo, credit card fraud, etc. The fact that some dishonest registrars are then passing this courtesy to domain squatters is an unfortunate side effect.

    18. Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. by Daychilde · · Score: 0

      I must strongly disagree. Your solution is, in fact, worse than the problem.

      You're throwing out the baby with the bath water.

      Unless you think only profitable businesses should have websites. Very few private citizens would register a $100 domain -- but squatters still would.

      --
      A cheerful little bird is sitting here singing.
  7. Bad headline : DNS != Domain Name System by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Informative

    In popular parlance, DNS is the Domain Name SERVICE, which is fine. The Domain Name SYSTEM is breaking down due to communication problems between or within registrars. Nothing to do with the root servers.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Bad headline : DNS != Domain Name System by e9th · · Score: 1

      Yeah. When I saw the headline, I assumed that Carl Icahn or Kirk Kerkorian were trying to get a corner on the root servers.

    2. Re:Bad headline : DNS != Domain Name System by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "The Domain Name SYSTEM is breaking down due to communication problems between or within registrars."

      It's actually not. There's no difference in the capability (or stupidity) of registrars since the first one went live.

      Pet peeve: they nearly all still publish A records when they don't need to, never mind we've known for almost two decades this is a bug. To this day people are being bit by it.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    3. Re:Bad headline : DNS != Domain Name System by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      Uh what? DNS stands for domain name system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_system , http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/DNS.html ) . This could be a system for resolving ips on a local machine (service) or a system for resolving them over the internet (servers). No one said it was a technical problem with the root servers. The registrar part of the domain name system is being stressed.

      Nothing wrong with the title at all.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
  8. Well maybe its *GASP* Time for Reform by scenestar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What if they applied the same rules to domains as RIPE uses to give out IP adresses. Basicly the first batch is given out no questions asked. After that you can still get extra ones as long as you can prove you use them for a legitimate reason.

    Sure it might sound restrictive, but with bots drop catching domains with brute forcing techniques it could weed out the worst of abuse.

    --
    perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
    1. Re:Well maybe its *GASP* Time for Reform by gregmac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a good idea in theory .. but how do you determine that someone is using them for a "legitimate reason" ?

      Is advertising a legitimate reason? Sure, any rational person can see that the typosquatter sites are really just advertising sites, and no content. However, some of them have "search engines" (that just return advertising results..) and how can you argue that those are not legitimate, while google (also a search engine, also returns some paid results/advertising) is? If you mandate that sites have to have useful content, then they'll probably just start inserting blobs of random content, or news feeds, or something else that technically complies with the requirements. Why shut them down, but not, eg, MSN or Yahoo, which are both a bunch of ads crammed around some content?

      Unfortunately I don't know how you solve the problem that way. In the end, the squatters will continue, making changes to their sites whenever you change the content requirements, and in the worst case, legitimate sites will be forced to make changes in order to comply (even though a legitimate site should never have to change, since they are legitimate).

      --
      Speak before you think
    2. Re:Well maybe its *GASP* Time for Reform by MoHaG · · Score: 1

      Something else to remember here as well is that not all domains are bought for hosting websites.... I, and quite a few other people I know, own domains only for email purposes. (I used to host a website on mine as well, but my ISP started blocking incoming connections on port 80)

    3. Re:Well maybe its *GASP* Time for Reform by bendodge · · Score: 1

      Want reform? Just charge $.50 to "try out" a domain. That would make it much less cost effective to domain spam, and it would also make a money trail.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    4. Re:Well maybe its *GASP* Time for Reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To make matters even harder, I have a domain that I use for everything except http. There is a web server sitting on www, but it just serves up a generic 404 because I didn't get the domain for the web.

      I actually use it for other stuff, email and ssh/sftp mostly. However I have used it for setting up game servers, chat servers and stuff like that. The few times I've set up actual web sites on it, they weren't on www. When you have a bunch of machines on different networks, it is much more convenient to have your own domain name.

      If you just go to www.mydomain it looks like it isn't in use.

    5. Re:Well maybe its *GASP* Time for Reform by gregmac · · Score: 1

      Why do you need to "try out" a domain? Either you need it, or you don't - the only people "trying out" domains are squatters. I just say the minimum should be a 1yr registration (at $8+ like it is now). You need a lot of clicks on your ads to pay that off, it quickly becomes unprofitable.

      --
      Speak before you think
    6. Re:Well maybe its *GASP* Time for Reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Would it be just as effective to increase the cost of registration with the number of existing registrations? I'm not sure you need to monitor the content at all. I wonder how the number of registered domains differs between squatters and non-squatters.

      Just make it cost-prohibitive to own large numbers of domains. That, plus getting rid of trial periods, and allowing existing owners grace periods after expiration, should probably cut down on a lot of this.

    7. Re:Well maybe its *GASP* Time for Reform by shmlco · · Score: 1

      Make 'em $1,000 each. That will cut down on speculators and at the same time clear out a bunch of people who use the .com domain space for purposes other than which it was intended. (Your family home page should NOT be a .com address.)

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  9. .org Maintainer Moves to Squash Name Tasting by miller60 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The method for squashing "name tasting" (the expoitation of the five-day grace period) is well known: impose a small fee for each returned domain. The Public Interest Registry (maintainer of .org) recently became the first registry to impose such a fee of 5 cents per name. VeriSign has not followed suit. Some argue that this is because enough "tasted" domains are registered that the sales benefit from the practice outweighs the stress on the infrastructure. ICANN is requesting a position paper from a coalition of registrars on the topic.

    1. Re:.org Maintainer Moves to Squash Name Tasting by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I have a novel solution to this problem.

      Leave everything as it is, but once a person or corporation takes advantage of "name tasting", revoke all their domain names, and ban them from registering a domain name for life.

      Seriously, there is not a single good thing that can come out of this service beyond lining the pockets of the registrars.

    2. Re:.org Maintainer Moves to Squash Name Tasting by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      ...and while you're at it, try the company's CEO for crimes against humanity and execute him.

      Seriously, if you're going to make the punishment so wildly severe compared to the harm, why stop with a wimpy little lifetime ban on registration? Give 'em a lifetime ban on RL. >:D

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:.org Maintainer Moves to Squash Name Tasting by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, if you're going to make the punishment so wildly severe compared to the harm, why stop with a wimpy little lifetime ban on registration?


      It's not wildly severe. It's the minimum punishment required to stop the perpetrator from being a nuisance on the internet again. The sentence doesn't need to be any more severe once it is sufficient to eliminate the problem.
  10. I don't see that as the problem by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is with the ICANN - they're mainly collecting money and doing nothing really good for the long term (they approve TLDs that are just "yet another .com"s - see any significant innovations/improvements?). A single Jon Postel could replace the entire ICANN and the world would probably be better for it.

    The bigger problem is everyone currently lining up to replace ICANN is probably worse than the ICANN.

    Financial maneuvering? Add political maneuvering.

    --
    1. Re:I don't see that as the problem by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "A single Jon Postel could replace the entire ICANN and the world would probably be better for it.

      The bigger problem is everyone currently lining up to replace ICANN is probably worse than the ICANN.

      Financial maneuvering? Add political maneuvering."


      Financia; and political maneuvering is how was born. While Ira Magaziner was running aruond in foreground trying to get the community to agree on bylaws and structure he was running around in background getting a board and bylaws set up from left field who knew noting about DNS and sat there doing nothing for years. And the fundamental principle of haveing an elected board went out the window. Some wag pointed out at the formative meeting in Harvard that claims of "immune to capture" was a joke - the board had already been captured by old white guys from the old boys network or telcos and big business.

      They were supposed to make new tlds to settle the 5 year dispute about that. Instead they did nothing but talk about trademark infringement which if you look at the public comments on the NTIA site were hardly indicative of "community consensus".

      But all you dingbats here back then said "looks ok - we should give them a chance". That's really what you all said, go look for yourself.

      Give it to Paul Vixie and Brian Reid at ISC. They've handle the USENET "root zone" quietly and efficiently and without a gazillion lawyers and are the only people I trust to replace Jon.

      There is a quiet level of corruption surrounding the birth and development of ICANN that makes movies about DC corruption look understated.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  11. Two obvious fixes by davidwr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fix #1: Eliminate the free tasting period.
    If you register fo0.com on May 1 and on May 2 you realize you goof and you meant to register foo.com, fine. But your registration still expires next May 1. In addition, you only get 1 or 2 "free goofs" after which you pay a paperwork fee, maybe a few pennies or less, to cover the actual costs of changing things around.
    The people who run DNS should neither gain nor lose if I register 1 name for 1 year vs. I register 100 names for short consecutive periods that add up to 1 year. Currently they lose big time.

    Fix #2: Meaningful domain-lapse rules
    In general, if a domain is revoked or lapses, nobody except you should be able to claim it without your permission for a certain period of time. I'd suggest a minimum of 30 days.
    I theory this is the way it was supposed to work but in practice ....
    Obviously there will be special cases, such as names transferred by court order.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Two obvious fixes by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, you can just charge a nominal fee for some of these things. Let's face it-- a 1 year fee for most hosting isn't that much to begin with, and if you messed up and registered the wrong domain, you'd do that approximately once, and for that a $1 fee probably wouldn't cause anyone to flip out. But if you're registering tons of domains all the time, it will add up.

      Am I wrong? Are there legitimate reasons to register tons of domains that might result in purchasing hundreds of mistaken domains in a year? Maybe I just don't get it

    2. Re:Two obvious fixes by mosch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you register fo0.com on May 1 and on May 2 you realize you goof and you meant to register foo.com, fine. But your registration still expires next May 1.

      Screw that. If you register fo0.com and you meant to register foo.com, screw you, you're out whatever you spent ($10-35). That's a slightly annoying lesson if you're a regular person. But it would destroy the typosquatting market.

    3. Re:Two obvious fixes by inviolet · · Score: 1

      Also, you can just charge a nominal fee for some of these things. Let's face it-- a 1 year fee for most hosting isn't that much to begin with, and if you messed up and registered the wrong domain, you'd do that approximately once, and for that a $1 fee probably wouldn't cause anyone to flip out. But if you're registering tons of domains all the time, it will add up.

      There already *is* a nominal fee for these tastings: five days' interest on the $6 deposit, which is worth about $0.006. Considering that the whole register/drop/reregister process is fully automated, that's probably a reasonable charge for the actual resources consumed. Versign certainly thinks so, seeing as how they aren't interested in changing the policy.

      The real problem here is psychological: to us, kiting feels like free-riding, and so it offends our proper Victorian work ethic. And there are real objections to be made against it on those grounds. But that doesn't mean that there is a financial justification for imposing greater fees on it. Forcing a $1/turn fee is a form of fiscal policy: using artificial fees to change behaviors we deem antisocial. That sort of activity is equally perilous, but in a different way.

      Typosquatting, meanwhile, is also plenty offensive, but it is a separate issue from whether kiting should be allowed or penalized.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    4. Re:Two obvious fixes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It is indeed way to easy for these squatters to sit back and wait for domain names to expire and then immediately snap them up. We had a local ham club lose a .org domain name when it was snapped up after expiring. I personally think there should be some sort of limbo period where the domain is disabled after expiring. It would be even better if accessing the domain name during this period sent you to a page stating that the domain had expired and would be open for purchase by others in the near future. During that limbo period, the original owner can repurchase. Once that period ends, it would be open season.

      In the case of clubs staffed by volunteers, regimes change frequently and often the people responsible for handing the renewal of the domain don't even know they need to do it. Plus, they are not getting the notification from the registrar. And the guy/gal who renewed it last time may no longer be around or may have changed his/her email address. If their web site just stopped working one day (especially if you got a page saying the domain had expired and will soon be available for purchase by others if not renewed), someone would notify the club leadership and someone would figure out how to renew it. The way things work now are thoroughly infuriating. You only find out when you go to the usual web site and find one of these stupid search pages that the squatters put up.

      I think a scheme such as this could help put a dent in one of the most frustrating aspects of the squatter problem. Many a perfectly good domain has been lost to squatters just because domain expiration notification emails just don't work.

  12. Testing period by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (posting anon because I used mod points)

    Who does the testing period benefit besides spammers and squatters? Does someone who legitimately want to use a domain name "test" it for five days... and then what? Of course someone who wants to the domain is going to keep it. But if you don't want it, why did you register it, unless of course you were testing it for how many people accidentally typed your domain name, and then we come back to the spammers and squatters. I'd be interested in knowing a legitimate purpose for this five day testing period.

    1. Re:Testing period by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (posting anon because I'm an idiot)

      Ah, it seems your modding go bye bye whether you post anon or not.

    2. Re:Testing period by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, that these web interfaces you, the registrant, use are not native to the actual registry. You register your domain by going to a registar (such as Melbourne IT, who rocks IMHO), via http or email or whatever. The registrar in turn connects via EPP to the registry to register the name.

      The "testing period" (officially called a Create Grace Period) was intended to help registrars who are too stupid to write software that doesn't go insane and make numerous erroneous registrations. This turns out to be a surprisingly large number of registrars.

      Remember also that it is the registrars, not the registries, who have the controlling vote in pretty much every committee involved in formulating these decisions.

  13. Dr Evil by Moggyboy · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    www dot ZipIt dot com...

    dot org...

    --
    Work smarter, not harder.
  14. apples and oranges by davidwr · · Score: 1

    ipv4 addresses are a truly finite number - there are less than 2^32 of them available and far fewer in the RIPE address-space.

    Domain-names are technically finite but practically infinite. I can always find some long, unused, random set of letters to use as a domain-name. It may not match my company name or any of the products or services I sell, but it will function.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:apples and oranges by Darlantan · · Score: 1

      Right, but when the only options left are things like "aabltisiqntwsngoffzeg.com", the original purpose of DNS is largely voided. At that point it becomes far easier to simply remember an IP address.

      There may be nearly infinite namespace available, but that's like saying that there's nearly infinite room for humans to live in. Sure, it's there, but most of it is in hard vac with no source of power even remotely close. It's worthless outside of being a technicality to be used in an argument.

      --
      Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
    2. Re:apples and oranges by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      There are still zillions of good domain names left. Just a little creativity will produce a nice name for almost any purpose. I think it's good that all the obvious names are taken. It forces you to be creative, and the new name you create won't conflict with someone else's trademark, unless you aren't trying hard enough.

    3. Re:apples and oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a small company, I wouldn't want my domain name to be too creative, because that makes it hard to remember. How many short (Five or six letter) domain names in the .com space do you think there are? How many do you think are being squatted?

    4. Re:apples and oranges by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      I hear there's a real shortage of waterfront real estate in my city. I should get them to start rationing it so everyone gets their fair share.

  15. stale links are the big win by davidwr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Suppose I run davidwristhegreatest.com. Suppose a few links exist on the web and I get a handful of hits a day from people clicking on those links.

    Now I get tired of being vain so I let the domain expire.

    Someone tastes the domain and their ads get viewed by 3-4 people a day.

    That's a few thousand people a year.

    Pretty soon that adds up to real money.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:stale links are the big win by IpalindromeI · · Score: 4, Funny

      Suppose I run davidwristhegreatest.com.

      First of all, who is going to visit "David Wrist He Greatest.com"? It's gibberish!

      That's a few thousand people a year. Pretty soon that adds up to real money.

      Second, how much do ad-views pay? One or two cents? Four people per day for a year would only be $14.60. Not sure that's a huge incentive.

      But mostly it's the first issue. David Wrist He Greatest?? wtf?!

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    2. Re:stale links are the big win by davidwr · · Score: 1

      1. Register domain for $8.99/year.
      2. Generate $14.60 in ad revenue per year.
      3. ???
      4. PROFIT!!!

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    3. Re:stale links are the big win by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      Okay sure, but what about the other point?

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    4. Re:stale links are the big win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me parse it out for you:

      It's Davidwr Is The Greatest.

      Look at his /. username.

    5. Re:stale links are the big win by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

      Four people per day for a year would only be $14.60.


      It sounds like such a small amount, but this here is the root of the business, $14.60 is close to 100% profit on that domain name, maybe more depending on the volume discount the registrant is getting.

      Consider that these people may have thousands upon thousands of domains, and well that adds up to a lot of very easy money (easy in so far as it's basically automated, set and forget).
      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
  16. Who gets to fix it? by fizzbin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Jason H. Fisher, an attorney at Los Angeles law firm Buchalter Nemer Fields & Younger, said the biggest obstacles to fixing the Domain Name System are its international nature and the reluctance of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to take action. Fisher said ICANN "would rather do nothing than make waves."

    If ICANN doesn't take action, who will? Who can?

    --
    Fizz
    1. Re:Who gets to fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If ICANN doesn't take action, who will? Who can? I cann!
    2. Re:Who gets to fix it? by kwieland+in+stl · · Score: 1

      If ICANN doesn't take action, who will? Who can? I don't think the World Health Organization is interested in helping.
    3. Re:Who gets to fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If ICANN doesn't take action, who will? Who can?
      ICAN!
      But I'm busy, so I won't.

      (posting anonymous due to the terribly bad joke)
    4. Re:Who gets to fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If ICANN doesn't take action, who will?
      Can we just change their name to ICAN'T?
    5. Re:Who gets to fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, but I know I cann.

    6. Re:Who gets to fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I CAN!

    7. Re:Who gets to fix it? by BlueCollarCamel · · Score: 1

      I sure as hell Cann!

      --
      1&1 - Cheap domain and web hosting.
  17. flush your cookies and change your IP first by davidwr · · Score: 1

    If /. doesn't know who you are it can't undo your modding.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:flush your cookies and change your IP first by Kiaser+Wilhelm+II · · Score: 1

      You have to log out completely. Ticking the Anonymous box does not magically make Slashdot forget about you.

      Even then, they could guess based on cookies and IP addresses (they don't do this).

      --
      Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
      Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
  18. Make that three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fix #3: Curb artificial scarcity
    Approve other generic TLD extensions such as "dot web"

    ICANN is like a wet noodle in the wind. I personally think they exist solely to hold wine and cheese parties in exotic locales.

    If people haven't done so already, join the lawsuit against registerfly and icann at registerfly-lawsuit.com

  19. If we could start DNS all over... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we might do differently if we were to start designing our "DNS" all over again.

    Personally, I would be motivated to de-centralize and eliminate (as much as possible) the rampant squatting and profiteering.

    On the political side: I would also make it impossible (or very difficult) for businesses like buydomains.com to exist. These people are the cockroaches of the Internet and serve no purpose other than to exploit. There would also be clear, stiff, harsh (and enforceable) penalties. The political design would discourage these activities.

    1. Re:If we could start DNS all over... ? by wish · · Score: 1

      Bring back the bang path!

  20. Or set a limit to the % returned by WoTG · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't have the link handy, but I recall reading about one of the other TLD managers implementing a maximum return ratio before they stop refunding the fee. Something like 10% or so.

    FWIW, the Godaddy.com CEO has blogged about this topic a few times, the numbers are staggering.
    http://www.bobparsons.com/index.php?/archives/118- MayKiting.html

  21. What DNS needs by rajinikanth · · Score: 1, Funny

    What DNS needs is a nice massage and a warm bath with candles and salts.

  22. Re:WTF??? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

    Is that a complaint or something? It's one of the many ways how smart people make some money you hippie.

    Actually it is.

    And no, it is not how "smart" people make money, it is how sociopathic jerks make money. Enough people with your attitude and Capitalism would turn into a kleptocratic dog-eat-dog anyting-goes nightmare where top 1% owns 90% of everything with no relationship of wealth-to-merit of any sort while the rest does not even have health-care ... oh wait there appears to be enough of jerks in charge already!

    The results of such activities by you jerks are of course in the long term counter-productive as your messing up of the society sooner or later results in your findng yourselves up against the wall (either figuratively or literally), which is usually when you discover that your smug jerkiness ceases to be an "asset".

  23. This seems to be a fairly clear problem by pembo13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just don't allow it. There's no possible positive in even allowing cyberquating. If someone wants to register a website that looks like a cybersquat, attach a clause saying they have x amount of days to put up an actual website, assuming there is a port 80 attached to that domain. Or can the registrars not stay away from the easy money themselves?

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    1. Re:This seems to be a fairly clear problem by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      If someone wants to register a website...

      Err, people don't register websites, they register domain names.

      attach a clause saying they have x amount of days to put up an actual website

      So the domain names are no longer allowed to serve as aliases for IP addresses? They can only server as aliases for websites? That kinda sucks.

      assuming there is a port 80 attached to that domain.

      Huh? That doesn't even make sense. Do you understand what a port is, and what a domain is? Apparently not, since understanding of those two terms would preclude making any assertions of having one attached to another, being entirely orthogonal things.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:This seems to be a fairly clear problem by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I understand the difference, I meant domain name.

      Of course the domain can server as an alias for the ip address

      Of course I understand, maybe you don't ... in order for a typical website to work, one looksup its domain name to get the ip address, and the browser sends the http request to port 80, no?

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    3. Re:This seems to be a fairly clear problem by jschrod · · Score: 1

      What a complete and utter load of garbage. (And yes, I read your response to osu-neko that showed that you didn't understand a thing at all.) So, let's try it again: Many domains exist for other purposes than giving the names of Web sites. For example, I have some domains that are used only for email and for nothing else. This means that there will be an email address mbox@domain.tld, but no www.domain.tld. No IP address is associated, nothing. Technically, in the DNS, these domains have no A records associated at all, just an MX record and 2 or 3 NS records (and the SOA). No Web sites, and that's OK and no cybersquatting either. Go back to your dorm, and learn something about DNS, and something about domain names and where they are used. Note, for more than IP address mapping. Then come back.

      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

    4. Re:This seems to be a fairly clear problem by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      The point is, there are legitimate uses for domain names *other* than hosting websites.

      There is no requirement (nor should there be) that www.domain.com exist for any particular domain or that there be an IP address for it (perhaps it only has an MX record), or even if there is a host, that it be a webserver.

      Basically, Domain Name != Web Site

    5. Re:This seems to be a fairly clear problem by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      It's a pity that you lack comprehension, and so feel to pass that off on me.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    6. Re:This seems to be a fairly clear problem by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Hence the clause that this _only_ be enforced on domains being _used_ for http.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    7. Re:This seems to be a fairly clear problem by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      So domains being used for http that didnt have a host with an http service would be ...

      Cant complete that, becuase a domain that doesnt have a host with an http service is a domain that isnt being used for http.

      Also, it is entirely possible (and completely legitimate) to have a www.yourdomain.com that has an http service, that is used only for private access at something like:

      http://www.yourdomain.com/an-unpublished-path-that -only-insiders-know/

      and which either gives a 404 at the root or has either a blank page or some sort of placeholder there.

      You dont have to specify what you are going to use a domain for (nor should you have to). A domain is simply a name, which you can assign hostnames in (which can include 'www', or 'fleeblebox' or whatever else you want).

      What services those hosts do (or do not) provide isnt part of the registration of a domain, and can change as often and as frequently as the owner of the hosts and the registrant of the domain decide.

      There is no legitmate way you can enforce what services and/or pages within an http service that someone does or does not host or offer at a domain they are the registrant of. Nor would it be really desirable to invite such regulation.

  24. If Verisign Can't Cope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well it's another sign that Verisign are unfit to run the DNS.

  25. The solution found! by sconeu · · Score: 1

    1. Find a feasible method for resurrecting the dead.
    2. Resurrect Jon Postel.
    3. Profit!!!!

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  26. Re:It's all them tubes... by dpilot · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but that's already taken. Type either "drano" or "dran-o" with no "www" or ".com", etc onto the bar, and you end up right where you'd guess: "www.drano.com".

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  27. Worse, many "registrars" are phony by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's worse than that. And it's all ICANN's fault.

    ICANN has become a trade association for domain registrars. Which isn't surprising; they're the ones that pay it money.

    A big problem is that registrars are allowed to speculate in domain names. ICANN has the power to prohibit this (see section 4.2 of the Registrar Agreement) but has not done so. To speculate in domain names, it helps to be a registrar, which isn't that expensive. ICANN's pricing starts at $4000/year. As a result, there are now about 800 "registrars", most of which are fronts for domain speculators. Most of them don't register domains for others at all.

    As a result, ICANN's constituency is now composed primarily of typosquatting slimeballs. That's why we're in this mess.

  28. Why don't we build an alternative DNS system? by mazphil57 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It shouldn't be that hard to setup something simpler than the current mess. For example, mycompany.com might point to DNS squatters in the ICANN domain, but to an actual "mycompany" in the "new" domain. The new domain would feature low registration fees to those willing to put up a real website. Perhaps something like torrents could be used to spread the DNS updates to eliminate control by evil entities.

    Since normal DNS servers would get ICANN entries, non-evil people can point to port 53 to use non-evil DNS servers (primary/secondary, perhaps using an evil ICANN-based DNS server as a tertiary fallback).

    Search engines could choose to return an IP-based page hit for a non-ICANN "mycompany.com" search.

    We could eliminate the ability of evil entities being able to "take down" a site using DNS measures (i.e Thailand, GWB, China, etc.).

    1. Re:Why don't we build an alternative DNS system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, if you can build it for good...

      Anyone remember newdotnet? They're still around!

  29. Access to the TLD roots? by Deagol · · Score: 2

    Is it possible to get flat-text lists of the domain names registered? There have been times when I've wanted to grep for domains in the big 3 TLD name space. Does any entity on the net provide simple, *free*, public archives of the various TLDs?

    1. Re:Access to the TLD roots? by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Not anymore. It's too much data and it changes far too often. I can remember, years ago, when you could ftp the master zone files from what is today Network Solutions.

  30. My Idea by ryanisflyboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think one way to fix this is to devalue the main gTLDs. Right now there are very few gTLDs that anyone can register for any purpose. I think we need A LOT more gTLDs and train the public further that everything isn't '.com'. This will devalue the existing .com domains that people are squatting. Example gTLDs that I think should have open registration: .global .earth .tech .www .files

    So on and so forth. And if you act now, for only $100,000 you can register a custom non-reserved gTLD for your own purpose (subject to approval, id check, no squatters, etc.): .godaddy, .verisign, .linux, .microsoft, .???.

    This will make that $40,000 .com collection a lot less valuable. This isn't real-estate. It is virtual. When you run out of land on the Internet you just make more land! Well, that will be easier with IPv6, but you get the point. I think the reason why these tactics are occurring is due to the perceived limitation of the .com space. So what, who cares, just make more gTLDs.

    1. Re:My Idea by rs79 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "I think we need A LOT more gTLDs"

      Holy 1995 batman.


      Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 12:40:30 -0700
      From: Jon Postel
      Message-Id:
      To: rick@uunet.uu.net
      Subject: Re: ISOC Statement on Domain Name Fees

      Rick:

      I think this introduction of charging by the Intenic for domain
      registrations is sufficient cause to take steps to set up a small
      number of alternate top level domains managed by other registration
      centers.

      I'd like to see some competition between registration services to
      encourage good service at low prices.

      I do think we need to proceed with some care, to understand what are
      the requirements and responsibilities of these service centers, what
      informatrion they have to provide to the community, what oversight they
      are subject to and by whom, etc.

      I'd be happy if you could help me come up with a plan for this.

      --jon

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    2. Re:My Idea by DaveHinton · · Score: 1
      I don't think letting people register private gTLDs is a good idea; it just makes it the new .com for big companies.

      But lots of new gTLDs is a great idea. Even better if they don't mean anything.

  31. Re:WTF??? by DoorFrame · · Score: 1

    I don't know, I sort of agree with the parent post. I'm not a really big fan of cybersquatting (and I admit it's annoying when I want to buy a domain name and the bulk of them that I would want are taken by squatters) but is it really a major issue? And if so, for who?

    As a web browser, I almost never encounter these pages and as soon as I do I leave that page again immediately. If someone is willing to pay for my eyeballs for that one second it takes me to process that the site is a fraud, so be it.

    As a web publisher I acknowledge that it's annoying to have so many names taken, but does it really matter if they're taken legitimately or fraudulently? What's the real objection here?

    Is it just that we don't like these people on a moral level?

    If so, I don't really care. They impact me so little that I have no problem with them peddling their back-room ways in the dark corners of the stale-link internet. I don't see them, I don't care what they're doing. If they make a little bit of money, how does that negatively impact me?

  32. Down with ICANN!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DNS madness needs to end. ICANN needs to either right itself or be done away with.

    Google and absurd domain policies are providing a catalyst for leeching maggots to thrive which hurts everyone. Its no secret everyone has been well aware of the situation for years. Its time for it to end.

  33. Re:WTF??? by Groggnrath · · Score: 1

    Enough people with your attitude and Capitalism would turn into a kleptocratic dog-eat-dog anyting-goes nightmare where top 1% owns 90% of everything ..and your point is?
    Communism is dead, it died because the will of the people is not enough to out way the desire for extraordinary success. I agree that sheer "caveat emptor" is silly, you however, seem to be shooting for extreme moderation in self made success. A theory that should never be accepted on the net.
  34. Obligatory by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

    I, for one, DO NOT welcome our not so new domain squatting overlords.

  35. Re:WTF??? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

    ... but is it really a major issue? And if so, for who?

    Yes, for the DNS infrastructure and therefore for all the useful sites/services on the Internet.

    As a web browser, I almost never encounter these pages and as soon as I do I leave that page again immediately. If someone is willing to pay for my eyeballs for that one second it takes me to process that the site is a fraud, so be it.

    One problem is that jerks like that original poster abuse the system to the point of breakage of all the other useful sites. Not to mention the resulting extortion that is going on for all the legitimate domain names which people want to register their actual startup businesses at.

    And systemic destruction of some communal resource is always a result of their smug abuse of one "loophole" or another.

    As a web publisher I acknowledge that it's annoying to have so many names taken, but does it really matter if they're taken legitimately or fraudulently? What's the real objection here?

    See above. Furthermore the GP is advocating, with glee may I add, general attitude of abuse of "loopholes", not just that restricted to cybersquatting. Tax evasion, pollution of the environment, investment scams, fraudulent advertising, sham companies, etc and so on. All can be accomplished via "loopholes" in the system.

    Is it just that we don't like these people on a moral level? If so, I don't really care. They impact me so little that I have no problem with them peddling their back-room ways in the dark corners of the stale-link internet. I don't see them, I don't care what they're doing. If they make a little bit of money, how does that negatively impact me?

    I already mentioned the ways how they impact the net in this case.

    But your approach in general is extremely dangerous because it is precisely what the jerks want. In most cases their scams affect only small percentage of the population and they count on you to have this incredibly naive and anti-social attitude of "it does not imapct me, I got mine, let all the others fend for themselves, not my problem".

    This is the very mindset that results in old ladies getting mugged in broad daylight in the middle of a busy street during rush hour, with hundreds of passer-bys turning their eyes away and thinking "I am not getting mugged, so I don't give a fuck".

  36. Yep... by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    Profit motive makes the world a better place in every way... Right... If you believe that I've got a swamp to sell you.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  37. One even more obvious fix by metamatic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, there's an even more simple way to totally eliminate domain squatting and domain speculation.

    It's just politically unacceptable to the people who have a religious belief in free market capitalism, and who can never admit that it's what's causing the problems with DNS.

    It's this: Make domain name registrations non-transferable.

    Think about it. You don't get rampant speculation in phone numbers. You don't find it impossible to get a new phone number because none are available. You don't have to pay $5k to a speculator to get a phone number in your desired area code. Why? Because you can't sell your phone number to someone else on eBay, and you can't keep phone numbers you aren't using for a trivial cost. If you *could* do those things, numbers like mine (which by chance ends in "00") would fetch serious money.

    If Joe Slimeball couldn't sell the cooldomain.com he wasn't using and had no plans to use, he wouldn't spend $30 a year to keep it.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:One even more obvious fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot moderation needs "-1 Wrong" and "-1 Patronizing". Son, you've got some great ideas, but this isn't one of them.
    2. Re:One even more obvious fix by Wiseleo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thanks to number portability, you can in fact sell your local phone number to someone else.

      It can be tricky, but local the vanity numbers brokerage is a thriving niche business.

      --
      Leonid S. Knyshov
      Find me on Quora :)
    3. Re:One even more obvious fix by ZenShadow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Think about it. You don't get rampant speculation in phone numbers. You don't find it impossible to get a new phone number because none are available. You don't have to pay $5k to a speculator to get a phone number in your desired area code. You've obviously never tried to get an 800 or 888 number. This is, in fact, quite a common practice in that arena.

      --S
      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    4. Re:One even more obvious fix by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Right, but DNS as it is today is like every number being an 800 number...

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  38. Obviously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > ICANN has become a trade association for domain registrars. Which isn't surprising; they're the ones that pay it money.

    They're not going to forbid that when that's how they make money.

    Personally, I hope that someone eventually invents a replacement for DNS and we can tell them to go screw themselves.

  39. Re:I have an idea! by rs79 · · Score: 1

    Other than the fact it's not copyright infringement, great idea.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  40. The obvious question is... by Panaqqa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who determines if something is an "actual website"? Being of a (mildly) technical bent, I would say that any document, even a zero byte index.html, that is coughed up by some variety of server software if presented with an HTTP request - that is an actual website. But we all know that this would not be the interpretation placed on "actual website" if this wording actually became part of the rules.

    As far as so called "domain tasting" goes, I prefer Bob Parsons' term "domain kiting" with all the same negative connotations associated with terms like "cheque kiting" (Bob Parsons is the founder/CEO of GoDaddy.com). To make it worse, domain kiting used to be available only to those with a large financial base to work with - generally in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But now, a few registrars (DynaDot comes to mind) have lowered the bar for entry so that people with as little as $500 can now engage in domain kiting. It is no wonder that it is so frustrating for new businesses to get online with a decent domain - we are seeing many many more domains such as "davestorontogardencentre.com" because better domains such as "davesgardens.com", "davesnursery.com" etc. are almost all owned by speculators.

    1. Re:The obvious question is... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Who determines if something is an "actual website"?
      It's like obscenity. It's hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
    2. Re:The obvious question is... by nytes · · Score: 1

      Right off the top of my head, putting a "For Sale" sign on a domain within minutes of registering it would be a good indicator of squatting.

      That happened to me a couple of years ago. I was trying to grab an expiring domain for myself, but it was taken, instead by someone in some Eastern European country, and included a "For Sale" notice right there in the domain registration info the moment it was registered.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    3. Re:The obvious question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it the correct spelling of "center" was already taken as well...

  41. Re:WTF??? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ..and your point is?

    My point is that the system is failing miserably, although most head-up-the-ass promoters of "unrestricted capitalism" probably haven't figured it out yet so the social unrest which is on its way will be a real surprise to them.

    Probably because they think of watching 24/7 "news" of Paris Hilton while cherishing their ability to buy truckloads of useless plastic crap from China for their "interest-only" financed 6000 sqft paper and sticks house, while having no savings and a negative net worth in general as "success".

    Communism is dead, it died because the will of the people is not enough to out way the desire for extraordinary success.

    Communism is alive and well in many places where it was always alive and well: Quaker and Mennonite communes. Oh you meant the State Capitalism / Totalitarian Governance combo which the Soviet Union practiced? That one croaked indeed. But not because because it could not out way desire for "extraordinary success". One set of supreme jerks simply lost to another set of supreme jerks. Oligarchs replaced Politburo appointees and then got replaced by ex-KGB "businessmen" who conduct business via 9mm pistol rounds.

    I have news for you: the governing principle of our supposed Capitalist society, the very reason it appears acceptable for the general populace, is that one's wealth is supposed to be proportional to one's merit to society. You break that rule badly enough, long enough and you will end up with Feudalism, Corporatism or some other Fascist abomination.

    ...you however, seem to be shooting for extreme moderation in self made success. A theory that should never be accepted on the net.

    No I am "shooting" for proportionality of reward to merit. That is all.

    No man or woman is 1000 times (or more) "smarter" then even the dumbest of janitors. No fashion model is more meritous then a productive cancer researcher or an accomplished researcher in quantuum physics. No CEO is worth 400 times the average worker in salary and 1000 times in bonuses when the very company he is heading is going bankrupt. No trust fund kid is "better" then that of a minimum-wage diner waitress just because he inhereited $2 billion from papa. And so on.

  42. not copyright infringement? by wiredog · · Score: 0, Redundant

    That's never stopped the [MP|RI]AA!

  43. Re:It's all them tubes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the tubes are all clogged, should they try Dran-O?

    Interestingly enough, I think that would actually work, as long as we fed it to the spammers and domain squatters.
  44. Mod parent up!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few years ago I lost mcgrew.info out of a combination bad luck and my own stupidity. It cost well over a hundred bucks to get it back, normally it's $30 every two years including hosting.

    -you know who

    1. Re:Mod parent up!!! by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      -you know who

      McGrew??

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
  45. Trying to figure this out by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I sold my domain name for $10,000 a couple of months ago. No regrets at all. But what I can't figure out, looking at what the guy who bought it used it for, why it was worth that much to him. All it is now, is a page with links, mostly to things I used to host on my site for my own purposes. Just seems weird.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  46. Lease rates for tasting and regular names. by billstewart · · Score: 1
    The Registry charges Registrars a standard fee for registering a name for a year - it was $6, but I think it's just gone up by 10% or so. The Registrars charge whatever the market will bear for their services, making money on convenience or cooperation for abuse, etc.
    The $6 fee isn't particularly cost-based; it was a scam from the beginning, but it's supposed to cover their costs for handling transactions, maintaining reliable database storage, etc.


    The "Add Grace" period lets you return domain names for free, for instance if you've made a typo in the domain name or somebody notifies you that your name collides with their trademark. It's not totally stupid, because it means there's *some* incentive to return incorrect names instead of keeping them for the full year or forever. On the other hand, in practice it's been a miserable failure from the time "domain name investors" discovered they could do "market research" by brute-force domain tasting, rather than predicting what names are actually worth paying money for before buying them. Mostly, it made sense back when domain names cost $35 from Verisign.


    IMHO, the right Registry price for returning domain names during the "Add Grace" period should be about 50% - it's enough to cut down on the high-volume typosquatters, but still provide some incentive to return names. More importantly, the price of buying a domain name should include a CAPTCHA to cut down on this kind of namespace pollution.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Lease rates for tasting and regular names. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Because nobody has ever broken a captcha....

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  47. Typosquatters want ad revenue, not just resale by billstewart · · Score: 1
    They're not just stealing the name because they hope to extort money selling it back to you or your competitors - they're mainly doing this because they make money selling advertising banners, and stealing a real name means they'll get some traffic from real users of that name, in addition to anything they might get because the domain name used keywords people might search for.


    It's scum messing up the domain name space's usefulness, and it ought to be stopped.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  48. Happened to me last year by PingXao · · Score: 1

    One of my domains (not an important one for business, thank goodness) expired. It was registered through GoDaddy and I decided to allow it to expire and re-register it somewhere else. After the grace period had elapsed, where you can re-activate it for an absurd fee, I tried to register it anew with another registrar. Too late! A speculator had obviously noticed it was a domain that had expired and snatched it up. I was pretty angry. Since then the domain has been active and is a traffic catcher for whoever owns it now. Like I said, it was not an important money-making domain so I really don't care that much, but I can see how this could be really bad for business. They've got you over a barrel at that point. I'm sure I could buy it back for an outrageous price if I really wanted (or needed) it. Screw that.

    1. Re:Happened to me last year by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      ...I decided to allow it to expire and re-register it somewhere else.

      Never heard of a domain transfer?

      I'm sure I could buy it back for an outrageous price if I really wanted (or needed) it.

      This is commonly referred to as "the stupid tax". You do something stupid, you end up having to pay for it.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  49. Re:WTF??? by notlisted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And systemic destruction of some communal resource is always a result of their smug abuse of one "loophole" or another. Bzzt.. wrong. DNS is a communal system but the Name Registry systems used for registration of domain names are not. These registries are usually run by for-profit corporations (e.g. VeriSign for .com) and these companies are anything BUT community resources. It doesn't matter to VeriSign if their $6.00 cut for each registration comes from squatters or legitimate sites.. In fact, they favor the squatters that bring them thousands in annual revenues.

    --
    Keep your domain ides safe from squatters.
  50. Legitimate Uses ofTesting period by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Ok, so it's 99.999% bogus and

    Typos - Domains used to cost $35 from Verisign or its predecessors. Making a mistake was really annoying. At $6, who cares?

    Trademark Conflicts - you can't always tell that somebody else in the world (or even the US) isn't using a name that's pretty similar to the one you're trying to register. You could offer to sell it to them, but that's treading on abusive domain name squatting and can lead to high legal costs. Even so, it's still going to cost you more than $6 to deal with the issue; maybe giving it back should still cost you $1.

    Unexpected Typo Conflicts - Maybe you weren't typosquatting, but there's some site or search term that generates lots of traffic that's *not* what you're interested in, and you're getting lots of traffic that's really for some word in Italian or Polish. Again, at $6, you might just not care, but if you've got an incentive to return the name to the namespace for people who legitimately want it, that'd be a good thing. If you *can't* return it, youll probably point it at some domain-parker site where you get advertising revenue and maybe point the visitors to the site they were really looking for.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  51. Can we make them unprofitable? by grahamsz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Presumably the process works like this:

    1) Register to trial a domain
    2) Wait a few days and count the hits
    3) If it didn't get the required number of hits then drop it, otherwise pony up to keep the domain.

    If there is some way that I can get a feed of each of the 35 million new names each month, then i can have a script simply wget a couple of pages off each site from each of a few IP addresses.

    That way they'll think they've hit paydirt, pay to keep the domain and suddenly realise that it doesn't get any hits.

    I would imagine that automated counter-measures could really screw with their cost benifit analysis.

    1. Re:Can we make them unprofitable? by orangesquid · · Score: 1

      Wow. You know, there are feeds for expiring domains (do they come from the registrars or from crawling services? not sure), so there ought to be feeds for the opposite somewhere :)

      I wonder if we can round up a few people to do this. The only pitfall I can see is that I have a static IP, so they could just filter static IPs out (and net-savvy people who care about squatters are more likely to have static IPs than the Joe Schmoes that feed these squatters the hits they make money from).

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    2. Re:Can we make them unprofitable? by Cerium · · Score: 1

      How about the hundreds of free anonymous proxy services?

    3. Re:Can we make them unprofitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only trouble is that most of the web's traffic doesn't go through anon proxies. Filter anon proxies, and you won't lose most of your 'real' hits.

      Something like TOR, maybe...

    4. Re:Can we make them unprofitable? by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      You can get FTP access to daily versions of the .com and .net zone files from Verisign. A little script processing will give you the new domains published that day.

  52. Re:WTF??? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

    DNS is a communal system ...

    Which is under assault by mass domain registrations and re-registrations. The very topic of the Slashdot article. Or do you imagine that those DNS zone databases, which are now heading towards 90% spam contents, reside on a magical cloud and update by magic? Not to mention that cost-free, completely magical little winged fairies are involved in retrieving useful data out of heaps of spam every milisecond of every day, no?

    but the Name Registry systems used for registration of domain names are not. These registries are usually run by for-profit corporations (e.g. VeriSign for .com) and these companies are anything BUT community resources. It doesn't matter to VeriSign if their $6.00 cut for each registration comes from squatters or legitimate sites.. In fact, they favor the squatters that bring them thousands in annual revenues.

    No, they favor squatters because they (along with the squatters) can profit from abusing the communal resource: the DNS servers.

    Also I would like you to explain to me the benefit to the society the squatters represent. Focus your effort particularly on the wonderfully stimulating and helpful extortion applied by the squatters to any legitimate startup company wishing to register their new domain.

    Bzzt.. wrong.

    That buzzer was for you.

  53. Re:WTF??? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

    Communism is dead

    Why is it that any time people honestly suggest a way to make a capitalistic system work better, someone injects this particular non-sequitur?

    Apparently, if you don't believe that the status quo is perfect in every possible way, you must be a communist, since any attempts at criticism or suggestions for improvement are inevitably met by this rejoinder.

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  54. trademark collision problems by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Right now there is the .com/.net/.org problem, where a squatter owns .org and you own .com, or you have to pay 3x as much to get all 3 domains.

    "Well-known" country tlds like .tv are already multiplying this problem.

    As you add more "respectable" or "well-known" tlds, this problem only grows.

    On the flip side, a bunch of companies can share the smith.* and jones.* namespaces.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  55. Does this really matter at all? by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    I guess I have a hard time getting worked up about this issue of people registering typo-close domain names.

    Look, if you want to take a guess at a domain name and type it into your address bar in your browser, feel free. Maybe you'll get lucky and hit the real site, maybe you won't. I admit it, sometimes I don't bother with Google and I take a guess and just type in a domain.

    But if you REALLY want to be sure you're hitting the REAL web site of interest, just Google it! 99% of the time the site you really were after is going to be right there at the top of the list.

    If you guess-type in domain names, don't be surprised when you get a random web site.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  56. re: legitimate use definition by pbhj · · Score: 1

    I agree that legal definitions are hard.

    However legitimate use of a domain for serving a webpage could include:

    * validates as a (x)html page
    * each page differs from others on any domains owned by the applicant by at least 20% of code content (#1)
    * does not advertise clearly illegal products or services (in the jurisdiction of the registry)
    * has valid and verifiable domain contact details in the registry entry (#2)
    * has a abuse@ address which is answered on request (#3)

    #1 - is probably quite easily abused (eg very long filenames for images!) but will require the squatters at least to do extra work
    #2 - ring 'em up ask to speak to the registered contact
    #3 - having an abuse@ address is required I think, legitimate users could reasonably be expected to answer emails on the request of the registrar as this shows that the account is being monitored ... seems like a start at least ...

  57. Re:WTF??? by Pecisk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Damn, it is so "cool" see such insightful post on Slashdot. What we lack in virtual internet world - even here - is descent criticism of Capitalism just because if you are against it, you are probably hippy/anarchy lover/communist/peace of croak. Which actually shows that people are not ready to discuss many things, if they are connected with even small slice of disappointment or embarrassment (such that Communism was used as ideology to create and rule Soviet Union).

    About proportionality you are talking about - well, problem is that people are people. Capitalism more or less is off-spring of Feodalism, so it simply slips back now. In my really humble opinion, people, left unchecked, will fuck up any system meant for common good. Why? Because of survival instincts. Like it or not, more money, more power is more chance for survival to most of the people. So they thrive for it. Why most people who are happy in marriage/with another significant one mostly don't care about these two things too much? Because they see their - or more concretely, survival of their species - in their family, children, etc. Yes, they need money too, but usually they have enough.

    IMHO, behind all those greedy, power hungry bastards, system gamers you could see people which just have been very unlucky in their conquest of founding of their future and "survival" - happy family and children.

    One big speculation, but those are my thoughts.

    p.s. My biggest problem with modern world is that we keep telling "alternative truth" about it. We just close our eyes and keep saying what we want to hear. Not truth. We don't like admit that we are a little bit...savages.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  58. Re:WTF??? by notlisted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Which is under assault by mass domain registrations and re-registrations. The very topic of the Slashdot article. Or do you imagine that those DNS zone databases, which are now heading towards 90% spam contents, reside on a magical cloud and update by magic? Not to mention that cost-free, completely magical little winged fairies are involved in retrieving useful data out of heaps of spam every milisecond of every day, no? Obviously you're still not getting how this works. No.. it's not little fairies that are involved in updating and maintaining the zone files.. Nor is it a magical community of poor, overworked volunteers. For ".com" DNS it's Verisign. The DNS system is only communal at the root level. You run a query for any .com domain and the root servers are going to refer to you VeriSign's DNS servers. The root servers do not have to handle all the updates for these domains being tasted, they only have to know where to refer any ".com" query too. VeriSign, as part of being the contracted registrar for ".com" is responsible for the cost of maintaining the QoS for the ".com" DNS systems and all these associated updates.. and it's VeriSign that profits from these "tasters". The reality is that VeriSign makes enough of the tasters/squatters that it's worth it to them to deal with the associated DNS load. In fact, they've even managed to play both sides of the fence on this issue by using the increased domain load to justify a price increase. If VeriSign was ever in danger of losing money because of domain loads I'm certain they'd be whining very loudly to ICANN.

    Also I would like you to explain to me the benefit to the society the squatters represent. Focus your effort particularly on the wonderfully stimulating and helpful extortion applied by the squatters to any legitimate startup company wishing to register their new domain. I never tried to claim that tasters/squatter represent any social value.. I just hate seeing people take moral high ground on incorrect assumptions of "how things work".

  59. Another Note: by Beefslaya · · Score: 1

    Someone should also make the point that these "squatted domains" are being used for other nasties out on the Web, such as spamming, virus propagation, etc. Misspelled names, and bumbling, fumbling Internet users (such as myself, aka. "10 thumbs") can be a recipe for disaster.

    This is a fine line between protecting the rights of a legitimate site owner, and someone with ill intent (harboring a criminals). These actions anywhere else in the world are considered EXTORTION.

    Nobody at the patent office could have foreseen this media form. Anarchists are gonna roast me for saying this, but you DON'T have the right to register Coca-Cola.com if it comes available. If you put anything up there besides a sanctioned Coca-Cola website, you are in violation of copyright infringement, and you have every right to have your ass sued off.

  60. From anouther side of the coin by Stevecrox · · Score: 1

    Cybersquatter are scum and need to be delt with heck recently I suffered this issue when a cybersquatter took the domain name seconds after it came up for grabs. I suggest we educate people about the issue

    I have a family friedn whom I shall call "Bob", Bob likes to think hes tech savy (he is not) he has alot of money as well, one day at a family BBQ Bob made an appearence and told us about this great investment opportunity, for £1500 hes bought 50 web domains with adverts on, they adverts are pretty much garenteed to make his £1500 back (sickenly enough they have and slightly more.) While he told this story and how this service was sold to him I initially blanked it out thinking it was a pyramid scheme it wasn't until my Dad (who taught me how to spot the damm things) was nodding in agreement with several other relatives I realised it really wasn't. I've since ranted (and informed) alot to family and Bob about this issue even anouther lapsed web domain that I used to own (which has again been bought by cybersquaters, amusingly enough I didn't want the thing anymore and the person tried holding the domain for ransom.

    So instead of just monaing about how ineffectual .com registering is, make sure your family knows, tell anyone who can listen about the problems this is causing spread awareness! Lets put cybersquaters in the same world view as murders and people who talk in theatre.

    1. Re:From anouther side of the coin by Stevecrox · · Score: 1

      Damm missed the preview button try the below for the grammar checked version

      Cybersquatter's are scum and need to be dealt with, preferably with penalties. Recently I suffered from cybersquatting when a cybersquatter took a domain name seconds after it came up for grabs. But instead of us all moaning about the issues they cause I suggest we educate people about the issue

      I have a family friend whom I shall call "Bob", Bob likes to think he's tech savvy (he is not) he has a lot of money as well. One day at a family BBQ Bob made an appearance and told us about this great investment opportunity, for £1500 he's bought 50 web domains which have nothing more than adverts. They adverts are pretty much guaranteed to make his £1500 back (annoyingly enough they have and slightly more.) While he told this story and how this service was sold to him I initially blanked it out thinking it was a pyramid scheme, it wasn't until my Dad (who taught me how to spot pyramid schemes) was nodding in agreement with several other relatives I realised it wasn't a scam. I've since ranted (and informed) a lot to the family and Bob about this issue, at the time I talked about another lapsed web domain that I used to own (which has again been bought by cybersquaters), amusingly enough in that instance I didn't want the thing anymore and the person tried holding the domain for ransom.

      So instead of just moaning about how ineffectual .com registering is, make sure your family knows and tell anyone who can listen about the problems this is causing spread awareness! Lets put cybersquaters in the same world view as murders and people who talk in theatre.

  61. Thank you, free market! by Goaway · · Score: 1

    Good thing that DNS is at least run as a free market, or we'd really be in trouble!

  62. What ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comprised mostly of technical poeple Raelly ?
  63. Re:WTF??? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

    For ".com" DNS it's Verisign. The DNS system is only communal at the root level. You run a query for any .com domain and the root servers are going to refer to you VeriSign's DNS servers.

    But all of the lookup requests for those spam domains must go through the root servers. As all lookups start at the TLD, more useless spam domains there are (pushed by spam emails for example) more spam lookups occur to the TLDs, right? (I am exluding caching here).

    Furthermore the other "public" resource at stake here is the pool of unused domain names in the sense that if all the possible words in all possible useful combinations are squatted at, the whole DNS system comes to a grinding halt as the only possible new domains one can register without being subject to gangland extortion are of the type of "1255ajjsay.com".

  64. Re:WTF??? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

    Also I realized that there is another flaw in your reasoning: the .com (and all the other TLDs) are in fact public resources. Just because their maintenance was (unwisely in my view) farmed out to some corporate crooks does not change this.

    Consider the fact that by allowing all those spam domains Verisign is slowing down their own operations for all users of the Internet not just those jackals who paid for spam domains. So average users who are not customers of Verisign, but who must access the public property of the .com domain through Verisign, end up being impacted by Verisign's mis-managment of that public property which Verisign have been entrusted to care for. Your very own links show the Verisgn's crooked activity clearly. So in the long term the public loses here because some corporate hyenas managed to use an inane right-wing political ideology to position themselves as gatekeepers of public property so that they can make profit by abusing the commons which belong to all of us.

  65. Re:WTF??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You you think "richer" == "better" and "money" == "worth"

    You sound like a bitchy philosophy major with no real job skills and who can't find a real job.

  66. Re:WTF??? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

    Well this theory has been around for a long time, most famously advanced by Hobbes. And his silly recipe to address that problem was ... monarchy. Go figure.

    I personally view human society as an evolution-induced struggle of older animalistic instincts with newer higher order reasoning and logic. Subsequently the individuals within it vary in world-views ranging from lizard-brained "winner takes all", "reproduce at all costs" strategies you and Mr.Hobbes agree on to that of gentle phillosophers and visionary scientists, more to the liking of Mr. Rousseau. So both were right in a sense.

    I see a further differntiation occuring between individuals and societies as time goes on, resulting in division of those who value reason and those who wish for existence more akin to locusts or maggots. You can guess which I am likely to root for.

    That does not mean that the more advanced societies which attact more enlightened individuals will be in the majority. In fact they are likely to constitute a tiny fraction of humanity at first. But sooner or later their influence must expand to that of the whole globe ... or humanity is simply not worth the trouble and should wither away.

    I personally still haven't seen a true proto-society of that sort where dogmatic, organized religion is only considered as a punch-line in a joke and where personal avarice, instead of personal ambition to help the fellow citizens and to advance the understanding of the Universe, is an aliment to be cured by the psychiatrists.

    The North American experiments in constitutional democracy and capitalism represent great advances over monarchies and feudalism but they, as you can plainly see, are a mere first step in the right direction and a constant danger of being subsumed back by the forces of greed, ignorance and mindless tribal authoritarianism.

    Capitalism for example is a brilliant trick (when working properly) to be played on the most greedy: the idea is to rig the rules so that by pursuing their primordial greed they end up advancing society for all its members. The avarice-afflicted are fitted with snuggly-fitting collars of competition and taxation which, when their animalistic instincts force them to push forward, straining and wheezing with foam at their snouts, drag the payload of civilization behind them, something which in their natural animal state they would never do. This of course only works when the collars and chains are in place. Otherwise it is no longer useful to allow the clinically greedy to run dangerously amok.

    So you can now understand why I think capitalism is a workable, useful, albait temporary tool, as long as those basic principles are followed.

  67. Re:WTF??? by notlisted · · Score: 1

    But all of the lookup requests for those spam domains must go through the root servers. As all lookups start at the TLD, more useless spam domains there are (pushed by spam emails for example) more spam lookups occur to the TLDs, right? (I am exluding caching here). But all these lookups would be going to root servers anyway. If I type boogyboogyboogy.com into a browser I'm going to hit the root servers with a lookup query regardless of if the domain actually exists. The "cost" to the root server is basically the same as it's just going to refer me to the VeriSign DNS. Theoretically you could actually make the argument that squatted domains actually easy the burden on the root servers to a small degree because if you're in a large ISP environment and someone else successfully did a previous query for that same squatted domain, then the response would be cached at the ISP DNS level, whereas if the domain wasn't registered it would do a full recursive query to the root servers each time.

    Furthermore the other "public" resource at stake here is the pool of unused domain names in the sense that if all the possible words in all possible useful combinations are squatted at, the whole DNS system comes to a grinding halt as the only possible new domains one can register without being subject to gangland extortion are of the type of "1255ajjsay.com". I agree with this statement, but this applies to "squatting" more than "tasting", which is the what the article is whining about. In a "tasting" scenario your domain will be freed up within 5 days.. unless of course it has good type in traffic, in which case the taster will keep it and it become a squatting issue. Overall, I agree that tasting is not a "good thing", but I think the "strained DNS" argument is bunk.

  68. How it outta be by sauge · · Score: 1

    All this expiring of a domain and then selling it to another is BS.

    Just ask those who bought trademarked domains and were greeted by a fat certified mail envelope from a law office.

    Registrars should have no business reselling domains that have expired. That is not their trademark to sell, not their brand to sell, not even their idea or creativity in the name.

    They should charge for resolution.

    Maybe charge for extra services like a web site or email.

    But for no reason should they think they can "own" a domain and sell it to the highest bidder. The courts have already established that one.

    The person who originally came up with it owns the domain. If they want to let it sit - then so be it. If they want to re-awaken it - then so be it. If they want to sell it - then so be it.

    It is BS one has to come up with one's own intellectual property only to have another entity decide to steal it and sell it to another.

  69. Re:WTF??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone has the resentment you seem to have for underserving and/or stupid people with money. For example, you can play poker against them.

  70. Re:WTF??? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

    Overall, I agree that tasting is not a "good thing", but I think the "strained DNS" argument is bunk.

    Please take a look at the argument I made in the other post below. Even if Verisign is slowing down only their own DNS lookups of the .com domain, they are still messing around with the public good since they are de-facto custodians of the publicly owned .com domain itself. So Joe Sixpack who wants to go to his hockey site will get a slowdown of his legitimate lookup of hockey.com even though both the domain owner and Joe are not part of the spam domain "tasting" scheme and both he and hockey.com owners are likely to be extorted by Verisgin (and through them by the squatters/spammers) by allowing Verisign an excuse to jack up registration fees (or alternatively to reduce further the performance of the .com domain).

  71. Re:WTF??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No man or woman is 1000 times (or more) "smarter" then even the dumbest of janitors

    I assume you post this because you are upset at the discrepancy in wages between individuals of different social classes.

    It is actually better for a country if the wealth is transfered to the most capable members of society, because, as they are more capable, they do a better job of generating new wealth from that money.

    This is one of the reasons why productivity growth in the US is so much higher than Europe, the wealth is distributed to individuals more by merit in the US.

    In the long run the discrepancy in salaries is more than made up for by the increased growth rate, and so it is better for all members of society, including those in the lower brackets.

  72. Re:WTF??? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

    You you think "richer" == "better" and "money" == "worth" You sound like a bitchy philosophy major with no real job skills and who can't find a real job.

    You seem to have missed the entire point of Capitalism.

  73. Re:WTF??? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is actually better for a country if the wealth is transfered to the most capable members of society, because, as they are more capable, they do a better job of generating new wealth from that money.

    The problem, which you obviously have missed from my previous post, is that there appears to be no relationship between the transferring and the "capability".

    This is one of the reasons why productivity growth in the US is so much higher than Europe, the wealth is distributed to individuals more by merit in the US.

    This of course is one of the funnier non-sequiturs. An ultimately "productive" worker is one which operates fully-automated, 100% efficient factory which employs exactly zero other employees. Furthermore, an ultimately efficient enterprise (owned by that last Capitalist who now nears 99% of ownership of everything if current trends continue) would promptly fire that last worker and replace him with more automation. Ponder that when you espouse virtues of "productivity" and "efficiency".

    The point of societies is not efficiency. It is happiness of its members. There is no race to be won by being more "efficient" then the some other lifeform on Pluto. But our lives are short and filled with problems and pain in no small part because of the fact that some people managed to pervert the society to put precedence of "efficiency" ahead of well being of the majority of its members for the sake of stroking egos and enriching very few of them.

    In the long run the discrepancy in salaries is more than made up for by the increased growth rate, and so it is better for all members of society, including those in the lower brackets.

    That green little man on Pluto must be getting ahead because you are concerned about how fast we "grow" our output of plastic lawn chairs from China and other worthless crap, while creating completely unsustainable energy and environmental (not to mention social and financial) nightmare so that we can outpace his "growth". Why else would you and the other nutcases be concerned with increasing the growth rate as opposed to general well being of individuals? USA is "growing" faster then Europe and yet there are 40 million medically uninsured people here to ... zero in Europe or Canada. What the fuck is the point of all this growth then?!!

  74. Re:WTF??? by Pecisk · · Score: 1

    Thanks man, this was fully +5 informative for me :)

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!