Experience with Fighting Domain Farming

Lost_my_regs writes "I had a .com domain name relevant only to me, no legal trademark, registered and hosted at a provider that went bust. When attempting to re-host the domain I discovered, to my unpleasant surprise, that the domain is now registered by a domain farming company (name removed). My question is: Is there any way to claim back my domain?"

Comments

In a word, no

[winkydink]

I longer words, if you are prepared to devote vast amounts of your time and effort then there is a very slim chance of your success.

Re:In a word, no

[Anonymous Coward]

If the registrar was ICANN certified, the domain registration should have reverted to ICANN or another ICANN provider when the company went bust. If the company was a subsidiary of another, the registration reverts to the parent. You do not lose the registration, you just get moved to a different registrar (though there can be some period of time while it all gets worked out). Sounds to me like you failed to follow the transfer or failed to pay when it came time to renew. Perhaps your spam filter shitcanned their instructions on how to start using the new registrar.

The relevant ICANN policy

j. Ensure that the registrar's obligations to its customers and to the registry administrator will be fulfilled in the event that the registrar goes out of business, including ensuring that SLD holders will continue to have use of their domain names and that operation of the Internet will not be adversely affected.

SLD is second level domain.

ICANN policy

Re:In a word, no

[Pinkfud]

Sadly, this is true. I used to own "pinkfud.org", a name totally useless to anyone else, and lost it to one of these people. Rather than try to buy it back, I registered "pinkfud.net" and went with that. I will never understand what they expected to gain from grabbing a no-value name like that.

Re:In a word, no

[rubycodez]

I'm sure the legions of pinkfud-fuckers could explain it to you, except at this point in history they're still in the closet

Re:In a word, no

[ls -la]

If the registrar was ICANN certified, the domain registration should have reverted to ICANN or another ICANN provider when the company went bust. If the company was a subsidiary of another, the registration reverts to the parent. You do not lose the registration, you just get moved to a different registrar (though there can be some period of time while it all gets worked out). Sounds to me like you failed to follow the transfer or failed to pay when it came time to renew. Perhaps your spam filter shitcanned their instructions on how to start using the new registrar.

The relevant ICANN policy

j. Ensure that the registrar's obligations to its customers and to the registry administrator will be fulfilled in the event that the registrar goes out of business, including ensuring that SLD holders will continue to have use of their domain names and that operation of the Internet will not be adversely affected.

SLD is second level domain.

ICANN policy

Very good find and post here. You should have logged in so people would see it.

Re:In a word, no

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have logged in so people would see it.

If people don't read AC posts that's their own problem. Read at -1, Nested!

Re:In a word, no

[nametaken]

I was wondering myself about how this happened to the poster. I assume they used a host and ALSO used the host to do the domain registration.

I've always used a separate registrar from the hosting co's. The sad fact is every jerk in the world is a hosting provider nowadays, but you know some hosting co's and registration co's aren't going out of business any time soon. Sometimes that means spending $10/yr instead of $6/yr for the domain, and then do your bargain hunting for the hosting. The name can be important... where it's hosted is a much more flexible affair.

So to the poster... make it a lesson learned, you're not getting the name back.

The most important part, perhaps, is that there are reasonable ways to make sure this doesn't happen... WE DON'T NEED MORE RULES AND REGULATIONS!

Re:In a word, no

[QuickFox]

I will never understand what they expected to gain from grabbing a no-value name like that. It's all automatic, an outfit will harvest and release tens of thousands of names a day, without any human seeing them.

Re:In a word, no

[whoever57]

They did not go bust, but lots of people lost domains that were registered at Registerfly due to mismanagement (and possibly fraud) by the owner(s) of Registerfly

Re:In a word, no

[Anonymous Coward]

you know - when i first came to /. i spent ages and a day trying to figure out who this prolific anonymous coward chap was - ha!

Re:In a word, no

[dalpeh]

no is correct

ICANN (look it up) has rules. No trade mark or service mark, you have no basis. You get 1 month after the expiration of the domain before any register can list it for sale. Even then, some registers have a grace period that they are able to hold on to it for times longer. (don't know how this works, but it happens)
giving you a chance to renew if you have not got an automated system doing it for you, godaddy does, brinkster and others I use do not. Avoid brinkster and networksolutions, they really hack me off and I will drop them asap. I want to try host monster and a few others if they are as cheap and user friendly as godaddy.

my advice, try godaddy.com: register and put the name on the want to buy domain search, it will come up taken and have an option to buy on expiration or to use a domain agent to try to get you the site if you want to try a faster more expensive effort

my experience: I have about 200+ domains and 150 + websites across 4 domain registers

http://www.allthegospel.org/
http://www.gospelblog.org/
http://www.calvarychapelag.org/
http://www.allthegospel.co.uk/

Re:In a word, no

[Anonymous Coward]

We had the same problem occur when a Spam Domain Farm out of Canada gained our USPTO trademarked website. After years of being bounced around and finally being transfered to an US based "Spam Domain Farm", we contacted the company with our trademark information. After about a month we once again gained control of our domain name we registered in 1999 http://urloid.com/earthoid1/ . Long story short, a trademark is the only way to go in order to avoid the stype of cybersquatting that my occur when a company goes broke.

Re:In a word, no

[Anonymous Coward]

We have met the enemy and he is us.
    -- Pogo

Re:In a word, no

[billcopc]

Yep, having your domain and hosting with the same company is asking for trouble, because they basically control your site end-to-end in that scenario. Having them as two separate companies makes it much more difficult for any one party to kill your site, and I'm not even talking about uptime issues - this is purely political.

The other issue is do you know what happens if/when you move your site to a different hosting provider ? Will you encounter resistance, either in the form of a blanket policy restriction, or uncooperative customer service ?

We've seen all sorts of abuses in the industry, there's no good reason to give any company so much control over your site. Is it really worth the $2.00 you might save on a bundle ? I think not.

Re:In a word, no

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? Domain-squatting should be eliminated, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect there to be a process by which a case of domain-squatting can be resolved properly.

Take GoDaddy.com, a domain registrar who fairly often blackmails their customers for hundreds of dollars on domains they keep that should have been allowed to expire and been available publicly again. ICANN should warn them, and revoke their license if they continue in anti-trust behavior. It shouldn't be allowed in the first place, I'm saying, and ICANN should make sure it doesn't happen secondly.

Of course 'the market' should stop going to GoDaddy and thus 'the market' should decide, but that shouldn't prevent ICANN from implementing something effective to stop problems at the source.

Registrars in the habit of making you check a box agreeing to a service arrangement with a clause basically giving them power of attorney 'on your behalf' should find in court that such a clause, at least, is void. Likewise, GoDaddy's clause that they will keep a domain you do not renew 'on your behalf' but ask for exorbitant fees for doing so should been seen for what it is.

And if GoDaddy was forced to release expired domains back into the public pool there would still be this problem of domain snipers picking up the domain from the public pool to do that same exact thing. Just because someone else will do it doesn't mean GoDaddy should be allowed to. I do wonder how one could demonstrate that domain squatting is what is occurring without squatters finding a loop-hole or way to appear legit, or otherwise what rule would help solve this problem, but that doesn't mean none exist.

You YELL that we don't need more rules and regulations, but the majority of domains registered today are squatted hoping to make money on advertising from inadvertent visitors or selling the domain to someone who wants to use it, actually, for real. This is a shit-situation that should be counter-acted.

If you let your domain expire, it should go back to being available to the public. The fact that it doesn't go back into the public pool makes me sick, and more-over hurts the public while being illegit. Half of the domains I want to register have place-holder pages as they wait to ask hundreds of percent of the registration cost for the domains use. That fact indicates their is something broken with the domain name marketing system.

The stock markets may be much more detrimental and there are probably some larger issues there, but they do occasionally convict for insider trading, and ICANN should take a tip from that and not allow domain sniping. If you know that someone is potentially interested in a domain available to the public and you go and register that name in order to get that person or entity to buy it from you, that's wrong and should be illegal. What reason do you have for saying we shouldn't have a process for resolving the illegitimacy of that action?

As for all the squatters betting on domain names that have general appeal, it's true that this is just as illegitimate, but at least it doesn't target individual persons or entities. I'm not convinced that you should be able to hold on to a domain name (reserve it) for longer than a year without having a particular use for it. This is a less black-and-white situation though.

It's true that we've heard horror stories from the days of supposed trademark holders taking away legit domains from legitimate domain holders - let's learn for those lessons, and from lessons of today, and create namespaces (fix the ones we've got) that have more common sense and repel more detrimental registrations...

Re:In a word, no

[tverbeek]

If a web site at the domain has any traffic or search-engine placement at all, a domain farm will assume it has value as a place to put ads. I accidentally let a disused domain lapse a few years ago, and it now has a bunch of advert-links using key words from the site I used to have there. All 100% automated, I'm sure.

Re:In a word, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Go look up anti-trust.

Re:In a word, no

[kayditty]

Of course 'the market' should stop going to GoDaddy and thus 'the market' should decide, but that shouldn't prevent ICANN from implementing something effective to stop problems at the source.

Except the market hasn't experienced any serious dissuasion from godaddy. You're interjecting your own biases into the ideal.

And if GoDaddy was forced to release expired domains back into the public pool there would still be this problem of domain snipers picking up the domain from the public pool to do that same exact thing. Just because someone else will do it doesn't mean GoDaddy should be allowed to.

What does mean they shouldn't be allowed to?

You YELL that we don't need more rules and regulations, but the majority of domains registered today are squatted hoping to make money on advertising from inadvertent visitors or selling the domain to someone who wants to use it, actually, for real.
This is a shit-situation

How?

that should be counter-acted.

Why?

Re:In a word, no

[rastoboy29]

You keep saying buying a domain you know someone else is likely to want is wrong, but you don't say why.

Why is it wrong?  Do we, as a society, really have to mollycoddle those who are too slow to get their damn domain renewed properly?

Re:In a word, no

[nametaken]

If I let one of my domains expire, it's really none of my business who or why it gets picked up afterwards. All I need to know is that I let it expire.

If I don't like that GoDaddy picks them up after expiration... then I shouldn't use GoDaddy. If I use GoDaddy, and it gets picked up by them after I willingly let it expire, it really isn't your place to complain that you can't have it. It was never yours, and you're not entitled to it. Sorry.

The fact that someone bought the domain you want and put ads on it may tick you off... it's happened to me... but I don't think it's illegitimate. So long as they're paying for the name and hosting, I don't get to cry foul. Similarly, if I buy a site and put a lame site up that maybe only three people in the world are interested in, tough... that's my business.

Again, we do not need more rules and regulations.

Re:In a word, no

[kidphoton]

>>I will never understand what they expected to gain from grabbing a no-value name like that.
>It's all automatic, an outfit will harvest and release tens of thousands of names a day, without any human seeing them.

It's called "domain tasting" and takes advantage of the grace period at the beginning of domain registrations. They keep the ones that have high traffic and void the registration of the ones that don't. While I don't see anything wrong with people having hundreds or thousands of domains and doing nothing with them (nothing being in the eye of the beholder), it seems to me that they should pay their money and take their chances, just like anything else in life. A retailer doesn't get to buy a shop and then back out when they realize they're not getting the foot traffic they hoped for, for instance. Same thing here. ICANN should modify their policy and limit the number of times a registrant can do this, implement a "restocking" fee, or something to curb this practice.

Re:In a word, no

[cshark]

You're wrong. Everyone who's posting a no answer is wrong. Although, that doesn't really make much of a difference. Here's why: Domain squatters buy domains based on links and google rank. If it has a google rank, and you let it expire... you're virtually guaranteed to have it squatted. It can be gotten back, usually by back ordering in a year or two, once the traffic dies off, and the domain is no longer in google... and as such, no longer valuable to the squatter. Problem with all that however, is that once it's been caught by Google as a squatted domain... good luck getting it back in. That too can be done with energy and a fiendish amount of persistence, however you are likely to be better off just ordering a new domain and starting from scratch. That's my two cents.

Re:In a word, no

[th3rmite]

So buying something, not using it, and then trying to resell it is wrong in your opinion? If we were to follow your logic it would lead to thoughts like "That man bought some property and won't develop it hoping to resell it later at a profit! What a jerk, we should TAKE IT AWAY from him since he isn't using it!"

Is there anything you don't use that you'd be happy if I came and took it away from you because you weren't using it?

Re:In a word, no

[Nested]

I do!

Re:In a word, no

[NemosomeN]

I see what you did there.

Re:In a word, no

[backwardMechanic]

Surely the real problem is that most free (as in not used to host an actual website) domain names are taken by squatters. That means that if you want to start a neat website, you can either pay a silly amount for a good domain name (one that I might be able to remember) or pay a basic rate for something obscure. It's making the web less usable, and I don't think anyone envisaged squatters as a problem when the system was created. It has a bug, it needs patching.

We're not arguing about lame sites that nobody reads - I think the difference between a lame site and a squatter are obvious, we just need to find a way of writing that down in legalese. Or maybe limiting the number of domains that can be registered to one company?

Re:In a word, no

[sg3235]

You keep saying buying a domain you know someone else is likely to want is wrong, but you don't say why.

Why is it wrong? Do we, as a society, really have to mollycoddle those who are too slow to get their damn domain renewed properly?

It's not always that someone is too slow. I had a registrar (don't remember which one) that had a non-secure page for renewing your domain ( I even verified that the action in the form wasn't an https request). I wouldn't submit my credit card information using their page. I decided that if they were too stupid to have a secure page for their renewal process, they didn't need my business. So I tried to transfer the site to another registrar. The transfer wouldn't work because it was "too close to the renewal date". Why should that matter? So I figured I'd just let it expire and request it from the other registrar. I was sure that no one else would want the name because it was for a church and the name was a combination of the town and denomination of the church. Further, mine was part of .org and none of the other TLDs had that combination. On the day it expired, I went to the other registrar and asked for it, but it was already taken.

Why is it wrong? The process isn't obvious. I never would have thought that someone would take the name just because *I* wanted it. If the name was of general interest, I probably would have called the original registrar and figured out a way to renew it before I transferred it. But I figured the squatters wouldn't be interested in something that had no general interest. Even having said that, I see no reason to allow people to obtain anything and resell it to others at a higher price just because they could get there first. That behavior does not benefit society. They aren't providing any value. It's essentially extortion.

In the end, I didn't pay their ransom. I let the name sit, but I watched it. They kept it for two years.

Re:In a word, no

[sg3235]

So buying something, not using it, and then trying to resell it is wrong in your opinion? If we were to follow your logic it would lead to thoughts like "That man bought some property and won't develop it hoping to resell it later at a profit! What a jerk, we should TAKE IT AWAY from him since he isn't using it!"

Is there anything you don't use that you'd be happy if I came and took it away from you because you weren't using it?

I don't think that you can equate real-estate and domain name squatting. For one thing, you can't steal real-estate out from under its owner and then demand a ransom to get it back. You might be able to equate it to ticket scalping. In that sense, I'd say the scalpers are jerks as well. I don't see any benefit to society in either of these practices and I have a hard time seeing how society would suffer if both of the practices were outlawed.

Re:In a word, no

[nazrhyn]

I'm very sad that I just used all of my mod points in other articles as this was infinitely more funny than were any of the other things on which I spent points.

Re:In a word, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Great examples of why these "counter-measures" are "counter-productive" is "Nissan.com" for example. Take a look at what happened with his business and the horrible trials and wasted time Nissan motor corp has put them through. Also ICANN will not stop registrars from using "Redemption" type methods of having the domain restored after it expires. ICANN actually is the one who calls for the domain to be deleted from the registrar. But the registrar holds the rights to the domain for approximately 65 days. For a fee, ICANN will reinstate the domain back to the registrar in the customer's name. That is why you see Registrars charging customers $150 sometimes to "restore" a domain. Although if you ask ICANN how much it costs the registrar you will be told it costs them $49. Registrars often markup this price to get some extra cash. It puts the customer in a state of (pay 100 bucks or wait 65 days and possibly pay more in damages to my business). In a way I can agree with you on this. However after paperwork and restoration agreements and the $49 fee to the registrar from ICANN, I can see why some registrars charge an extra 50-100 bucks.

Tom
Web Hosting Technician
nulltech_gaming@yahoo.com

Find them...

[Anonymous Coward]

...kill them, wait two years and reclaim what is yours.

Re:Find them...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, I agree.

It may be legal, but it's just plain wrong.
These domain parking organisations are criminals. Anybody with half a brain can see that.
Ask them for your domain back. It may have been an automated process and they may agree.
If that doesn't work. Kill them.

Re:Find them...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they're probably in the Cayman Islands, you can have a nice holiday while you're at it.

Re:Find them...

[IBBoard]

And then either:

a) Repeat the above after it expires and some other automated domain farm snaps it up

or

b) spend the next 25-to-life* being careful about not dropping the soap

I guess killing the domain squatter may have its momentary element of fun, though.

* Apologies for the Americanism

Re:Find them...

[cyphercell]

all he needs now is beautiful blond and he's the james bond of web-nerds.

Buy it

[Spazmania]

If its really that minor a domain, offer the current registrant a $100 and tell him it has sentimental value. These guys are registering under $10/year and realizing gross revenues in the range of $15/year. They'll take the deal.

Re:Buy it

[__aawfbm2023]

So, make it worth their time to continue clogging up the internet?

Re:Buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth their time either way.

Re:Buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

Offer them A relatively small sum of money, sure. But you'd be stupid to tell them it has sentimental value!

Re:Buy it

[Spazmania]

It is what it is. The UDRP is rigged so that even if you do have a strong claim it's costly and difficult to get the domain back. The OP didn't ask, "How do I take a stand?" He admitted he had a weak claim and asked, "How do I get it back?"

Re:Buy it

[QuickFox]

So, make it worth their time to continue clogging up the internet? Sadly, as long as pretend-to-do-no-evil giant Google keeps encouraging and rewarding these shady practices, us regular guys are utterly powerless. It would take a tremendous concerted effort to outvote Google with our pitiful dollars.

Even so, I'd try everything I could before resorting to paying the leeches. It's just too distasteful for words.

Re:Buy it

[klenwell]

Sadly, as long as pretend-to-do-no-evil giant Google keeps encouraging and rewarding these shady practices, us regular guys are utterly powerless. It would take a tremendous concerted effort to outvote Google with our pitiful dollars.

I agree this is the crux of the problem. I wish Google would move against domain farming, but as parent points out, they're the industry leader.

Had a similar thing happen to me with a domain which I was using much like the OP. I had the .com version -- wasn't commercializing it in anyway. Let the registration lapse and it got vacuumed up by a domain farmer. I just registered the .net version. Then after a year, after the farmer probably lost money on it, the .com domain was free again and I re-registered it for a longer period with (what I hope is) a more reliable registrar, Yahoo.

Re:Buy it

[Hall]

$100 for something with sentimental value ? Not much sentiment there... Anyway, if you tell them that, the price will go UP !

Re:Buy it

[The Empiricist]

The UDRP is much more streamlined and cost-effective than other methods of dispute resolution such as going to court. Complainants often win even weak cases because many respondents do not even try to dispute the claims. Only 14% of UDRP disputes that have been decided were decided in favor of the respondent.

The poster does not even need a lawyer to proceed with a UDRP complaint (it might help, of course). Information about the process is available from ICANN.

Re:Buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

$100 for something with sentimental value ? Not much sentiment there... Anyway, if you tell them that, the price will go UP !

This reminds me of a wrecking yard I went to years ago. It had a sign behind the counter reading, "If you have a car whose sentimental value exceeds it's financial value, have we got a deal for you!"

In any case, if the name were really so offbeat, almost any offer should be adequate. They know damned well that no one else will likely buy the oddball name, so your offer is the best they can expect. Sure, they can keep it out of spite, but it's ten bucks on their books for the next couple of years with no realistic hope of recovering anything beyond your offer for their trouble.

OTOH, they may hold it anyway, just to keep the word from getting out that they can be had so cheaply. Fuck the bastards.

Re:Buy it

[emseabrown]

Should you ever need to do anything fancy with that domain, you will be regretting the choice of Yahoo.

They outsource their domain registration, and it takes some serious hoop jumping to change or do anything interesting.

I am speaking from both personal experience and from research. See the following:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=yahoo+domain+registration+nightmare&btnG=Google+Search

Re:Buy it

[Dan541]

So, make it worth their time to continue clogging up the internet? Sadly, as long as pretend-to-do-no-evil giant Google keeps encouraging and rewarding these shady practices, us regular guys are utterly powerless. It would take a tremendous concerted effort to outvote Google with our pitiful dollars.

Even so, I'd try everything I could before resorting to paying the leeches. It's just too distasteful for words.
  can someone please explain to me what is wrong with domain parking?

I have 16 domains If I can make a few dollars of something I own its my right to do so.
It happens that I have a personal distaste for ads but if I want to fill an otherwise blank or non-existant page with ads who are you to tell me what I can and cant do with my domain?

~Dan

Re:Buy it

[QuickFox]

Nothing wrong with what you describe. The thing I dislike is outfits that automatically harvest and squat on hundreds of thousands of domain names just in case someone wants a name, then they demand exorbitant fees.

In the meantime the Web gets spammed with hundreds of thousands of automatically generated pages that contain no real content, just text snippets automatically lifted from real pages. It's like e-mail spam but on the Web.

Whenever you look for a meaningful domain name it's squatted by one of these outfits. Real outfits have to either pay the leeches or choose a less useful name that is more difficult to remember.

If you're reserving a name for future real use I see nothing wrong in using it in the meantime. It's the massive bulk squatting and massive auto-generated spamming that annoy me. It blocks real, creative domain-name users.

Re:Buy it

[Dan541]

I understand how frustrating it is I was annoyed that I couldent get my family name in .com Fortunatly I got a few decent alternatives.

Ask nicely

[Anonymous Coward]

This might sound silly, but it worked. Explain the situation calmly, and ask them nicely to get your name back for a small fee (however much you'd normally pay for registering a domain). Believe it or not, it worked for me.

Re:Ask nicely

[justfred]

Back around 2000, my domain name, www.sideshowfreak.com, was at Netcom, and they somehow managed to drop it in the middle of a back-end transfer. I found out two weeks later when my emails stopped coming.

I did what you suggested, asked nicely, offered to double his transfer expenses, explained that I was setting it up for some friends doing a circus.

He was a total and complete jackass. Hurling obscenities, suggesting unreasonable prices ($100,000). I gave up. It wasn't worth the effort or the agony. I did manage to call his mom, who had the phone number that the account was registered to - the guy was in college and didn't have a phone. The poor woman sounded like she had had this conversation dozens of times. "Please, I don't know why my son is doing this, can you speak to him and ask him to stop, I'm getting so many calls, he's just out of control..." Eventually he anonomized the whois.

That domain name is STILL hosted by a domain name farmer - don't know if it's still him. I expect whoever it is uses some metric of number of hits to determine how valuable a name is, so listing it here might bump up its value.

Domain name farming should be killed. If you're actually using a domain, fine. But if you're just holding it waiting for someone to pay an unreasonably high price, someone with a legit claim (say, the previous owner) should be able to snipe it back.

Re:Ask nicely

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say it's more like "domain investing" rather than "domain farming". It's an industry and 100% legal. Not referring to cybersquatters and typosquatters here, obviously, but there is nothing wrong with buying generic domains. Everybody is allowed to buy and own as many domains as one wishes. You can do it, too. I would say if you lose a domain because you forgot to renew it, then that's your own fault. But don't blame the person who bought it. By the way, it's likely that he ended up paying more than $10 for it, because that's just the annual registration fee and the one-time acquisition fee should be $50+, depending on the value of the domain.

If your domain registrar shut down and you lost the domain due to this, contact ICANN and file a complaint. You should not lose your domain because of a registrar making bad business. If you forgot to renew it that's another thing, but I believe you're entitled to your domain if you lost it due to bad management by the domain registrar you used.

And FYI, $100,000 isn't necessarily an unreasonable price for a domain. Just imagine a generic domain driving hundreds of potential clients via direct navigation traffic to its owner's website. Each of these clients could be worth thousands of dollars. So you see, targeted traffic makes generic .com domains highly valuable. It's definitely not unusual that domains are traded at prices higher than $1,000... maybe even as high as $1+ million.

D.

Re:Ask nicely

[pongo000]

Domain name farming should be killed.

While you're at it, you should try to save some time and just do away with all types of speculation (real estate, stocks, arbitrage, gold, coins, stamps, art, etc.). Or maybe there's some significant difference between domain name speculation and other types of speculation (all of which are quite legal, BTW)?

Re:Ask nicely

[JebusIsLord]

I'm not convinced this is speculation, so much as plain-ol' scalping. With the exception of real estate, all of those things are purchased for the sole purpose of investment. Domain names are actually USED for something useful, so trading them like stock reduces the usefulness of the WWW (in my opinion - I also think scalping Wiis and concert tickets on eBay should be illegal).

Re:Ask nicely

[IBBoard]

Lets see:

Real Estate - you can buy it, improve it, sell it on to someone who is unable to improve it themselves
Stocks - you buy it and a company gets an investment to spend and improve their business
Gold - meh, we don't need it, everything is based on 1s and 0s. No-one misses it if you 'buy' some and it remains sitting in some bank vault somewhere
Coins/stamps - Millions of almost identical ones. To most people they don't have much value or use.
Art - it was designed to be collected and displayed
Domains - squatters (which is what they are) don't improve it after they buy it. In real estate terms they leave it to rot with minimal attention and invest nothing in it. In terms of stock then no-one (except the registrar) sees the benefit of an investment, and they're getting bulk purchasing so it isn't as much as it could be. In terms of gold then people actually need domain names, since the only other alternative is IP addresses and folders that aren't portable. In terms of coins and stamps then each is unique and they have value to the masses that want to visit. In terms of art then they were created to access a website, not a load of adverts, and they certainly weren't designed to be collected.

So I think there might be one or two differences there.

Re:Ask nicely

[Anonymous Coward]

That domain name is STILL hosted by a domain name farmer - don't know if it's still him. I expect whoever it is uses some metric of number of hits to determine how valuable a name is, so listing it here might bump up its value. I think you just made that domain name seem more valuable this week to some domain farmer...

Re:Ask nicely

[pongo000]

Real Estate - you can buy it, improve it, sell it on to someone who is unable to improve it themselves

Or, you can hold on to it, prevent it from being used by anyone else in the hopes that its value will appreciate or that you will gain some indirect benefits.

Stocks - you buy it and a company gets an investment to spend and improve their business

A publicly-owned corporation does not benefit directly from the machinations of the stock market. When you buy a stock (except in the case of an IPO or reissue), you do not enrich the company.

Gold - meh, we don't need it, everything is based on 1s and 0s. No-one misses it if you 'buy' some and it remains sitting in some bank vault somewhere

You don't need it, maybe. But millions are made on precious metal speculation, so someone is benefiting..

Coins/stamps - Millions of almost identical ones. To most people they don't have much value or use.

Just as a personal domain name doesn't have much use for most people (other than perhaps the domain owner)?

Art - it was designed to be collected and displayed

Really? Care to provide a resource for this?

Domains - squatters (which is what they are) don't improve it after they buy it. In real estate terms they leave it to rot with minimal attention and invest nothing in it

It doesn't appear your arguments support your conclusion. Please try again, and this time let's not engage in slashthink.

Re:Ask nicely

[pongo000]

One difference between scalping and speculation is that scalping, by its very definition (selling something at a value greater than face value) benefits the seller only one time. After the sale, the previous owner no longer benefits from the item scalped.

Speculation, OTOH, can enable a speculator to derive a continuous flow of income from whatever it is they are speculating on. A real estate speculator may derive cash flow from leases, or might parcel a piece of real estate and sell off over a period of time, taking advantage of appreciation along the way.

A domain name speculator may derive cash flow from clickthroughs on their domain name portfolio.

So what, exactly, is so wrong with selling something for more than face value? Isn't this the exact principle that free enterprise is built upon: You sell something for more than its worth in order to derive a profit or benefit. Tickets, widgets, or garage sale items: It's all the same in the end.

I always get a chuckle at the slashthink that surrounds the topic of domain name speculation, because there are very few arguments ever offered that logically support the argument that domain name speculation is "a bad thing."

BTW, I am not a domain name speculator (or squatter, or whatever you want to call it). I just find the arguments against the practice specious, disingenuous, and trivial.

Re:Ask nicely

[5pp000]

I just think the minimum registration fee charged by ICANN to register any domain should be much higher, like at least $10/year. If a speculator still wants to speculate at that price, let them. But now we have a situation where by posing as a registrar, they can speculate at pennies per year per domain -- which makes it economic for them to sit on vast farms of domains.

Why would this be better? Because it would be good for the Internet as a whole if domains tended to be owned by people who could get more value out of them than the squatters do.

Re:Ask nicely

[pongo000]

But now we have a situation where by posing as a registrar, they can speculate at pennies per year per domain -- which makes it economic for them to sit on vast farms of domains.

You might be interested to know that registrars pay USD6.42 for a .com domain name (USD4.85 for a .net domain name) from Verisign. So a 1,000,000 domain-name portfolio doesn't come cheap!

Setting up a registrar requires a significant up-front security (either actual cash or letter of credit) equal to the number of anticipated monthly registrations x the number of years x the USD registration fee. In addition, you must pay ICANN about $10,000/year for accreditation, and demonstrate at least USD70,000 in working capital. It is not a trivial undertaking.

What many speculators do is "test-drive" domains by taking advantage of the 5-day grace period that Verisign allows before a domain name must be paid for. Even then, a registrar will pay $6.42 to continue to hold onto a domain after the grace period.

Re:Ask nicely

[Reziac]

One big diff I see is that domain squatters pay no taxes on their holdings, and since many ARE registrars, they pay no reg'n fee either (ICANN's few cents barely counts.) Real estate will always cost you property tax at the bare minimum.

Re:Ask nicely

[iacvlvs]

A publicly-owned corporation does not benefit directly from the machinations of the stock market. When you buy a stock (except in the case of an IPO or reissue), you do not enrich the company. but the indirect benefit is tremendous. Companies raise capital by selling stock (IPOs and reissues, as you pointed out). Investors buy the stock issued by companies because they expect a return on their investment. The machinations of the stock market are crucial to realising that return. So, to paraphrase gp: Stocks - because in future you will buy it, a company can (re)issue stock to get an investment to spend and improve their business.

Re:Ask nicely

[IBBoard]

Real estate: As someone else pointed out you have to pay taxes on it (normally proportional to its worth). Also, you can improve it and sell it on because anything you do is fairly permanent in terms of increased value. Domains are transient and so is any content you may (but squatters don't) put on it.

Stocks: Again, someone covered that. If the company had nothing to gain from stocks then they wouldn't issue them in the first place. Also, the whole point of the stock market is to prospect on it.

Gold: Pratchett was insightful in his latest book, "Making Money". We 'need' gold to prop up the currencies, but only because people think we need it. Nothing ever actually moves anywhere (except maybe five feet across the vault to another marked area) it's all just the fact that it is there if we want it that makes people happy. Everything in the modern economy is based on moving numbers, not moving gold.

Coins/stamps: but the problem also affects companies and big community projects. example.com would be the perfect domain for a project with great content that would benefit lots of people, but they have to go with e.xample.co.us because some squatter has bought up all of the decent domains and in some cases isn't even doing anything with it.

Art: Erm, how about the fact that the early painters of large paintings (I'm thinking the Renaissance here) were generally doing it on the pay of some local lord or other important person? They painted, the sponsor paid them, the sponsor then owned it and displayed it (or put it in a private display). Modern painters do a similar thing, only they put it in a gallery and then auction it off rather than being sponsored from the start.

Domains: The section you quoted isn't supported by the arguments, but that's because the arguments were about why domains aren't like other things that are prospected on/invested in while the quoted section was about what people do when they squat on domains (which, come to think of it, is quite an apt word for the outcome).

Re:Ask nicely

[JebusIsLord]

My problem with it is that, unlike capital investment, scalping produces nothing. It simply transfers wealth from a person who earned it, to someone else. So these people are metaphorically leaches on the economy. If I buy stock in a company, I'm investing in their development. Seems very different to me.

And yes, I am against enron-style energy speculation. Call me a commie if you want. Why don't these people do something to actually contribute?

On a related note...

[3p1ph4ny]

What's the best way to get a domain from a parker? I've got a particularly unique first name, and I'd like to buy myfirstname.com, which is obviously parked.

Should I just look up the admin in the whois and send him an e-mail? I wouldn't be opposed to spending $50-100 on this domain, I just want to know how to contact.

Re:On a related note...

[noidentity]

I've got a particularly unique first name, and I'd like to buy myfirstname.com, which is obviously parked.

Let me guess, your last name is mylastname? Unique, definitely, but unfortunate I'd say.

Re:On a related note...

[3p1ph4ny]

Taking my own advice, I just looked and my desired domain is listed as owned by "Moniker Privacy Services". Upon a visit to moniker.com, I see that I can place a minimum bid of $1000 for the domain. This is (obviously) out of the question, since it's been parked for the last year or so.

I suppose I could just wait for it to expire (2008) and have someone register it for me.

Re:On a related note...

[Southpaw018]

You're lucky. $1000 is dirt cheap compared to what most farmers/squatters ask. I had one tell me that since the name in question was used in 750,000 web pages in Google, it's obviously an extremely common name (when it's actually quite rare), and asked for $7500 minimum.

Re:On a related note...

[Buran]

How do you know it's not being used for email and other services, and just doesn't have a web presence? My own personal domain is for web and email both, but what if I wanted to always just have my own email address that follows me no matter where I live/work?

Re:On a related note...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, but what the hell should *I* do? My last name is "Google".

Re:On a related note...

[Z00L00K]

There are several alternatives available to this (not all legal), but you have to identify the squatter first.

• The IRS may always be looking for persons with an untaxed side-income. Inform them about the person and that you suspect he is making a considerable amount of money. - Downside is that it may take a while.
• Copyright infringement seems to be popular these days.
• Tell the ISP and/or domain hosting company that this person is suspected of online fraud...
• Tell the local police for the squatters area that you have a suspect in some computer-related crimes. Even better if you manage to drop a few items like a CD or a hard disk with incriminating information at his site.
• Collect a set of mean-looking friends and pay a visit.
• Tell a lot of religious sects to pay him a visit - and that he is in dire need of them. Refer to some useful commandment in the bible or so.
• Figure out the home phone number of the person and his friends/family and call them at irregular intervals and just tell them that he has something that belongs to you.
• Gas leaks are always useful...
• Diesel fuel smells bad a loong time.
• Toner powder from a copier is really sticky and makes good stains.
• Mail order items from a discrete address - if paid at delivery.
• Misplaced deliveries of large items are even more funny - Sometimes it's enough to just plant stickers on things that are going to be discarded saying "send to..." and they may be sent by some unknowing person. (a friend of mine "suffered" this when he as a prank put a sticker on a desk in storage with his name and address as a joke. Wonder who got the last laugh! He still has the desk...) Go figure when a delivery truck shows up with a pile of used office chairs...
• Entering the address and name on several online forms for home remodeling quotes etc.
• Small packages with white powder found in places controlled by this individual is always an option. The stranger the content the better... Can be either biohazard or drugs when you see a small package of white powder, but it can range from baking soda to ground limestone.
• The classic dual-end plugged pipe is also fun to use. Just filled with something - what doesn't matter...

Maybe

[zapwow]

I was in your situation three years ago. I lost my domain simply because I forgot to renew it, so I had to wait three years before two other buyers decided it wasn't worth the money.

Sum it up...

[Mullen]

No.

Unless your are big with lots of money and lawyers, it is not going to happen. You will have to buy the domain back from them, that is how domain farmers stay in business.

Ever hear of auto renew? Standard option on any halfway decent domain registrar.

Re:Sum it up...

[Anonymous Coward]

His provider went bust and he was probably buying the domain through his provider. Sorry, auto-renew wouldn't have saved him.

Getting Your Domain Name Back

[hyades1]

I'm no lawyer, and I don't know the details, but I seem to remember reading that these creeps have to make some use of the name, they can't just scoop it up and squat on it forever. I'm sure somebody here can give you chapter and verse on this.

Re:Getting Your Domain Name Back

[Spazmania]

That's trademarks. You have to use trademarks to keep them. A domain name you can squat on forever, or at least as long as you're willing to keep renewing it.

Re:Getting Your Domain Name Back

[hyades1]

That sucks. Can we just take a couple of these leeches out an stake 'em to an anthill or something?

Re:Getting Your Domain Name Back

[Thuktun]

And even if that weren't the case, they would surely try to argue that the "search" pages typically hosted at a squatted domain meant they were using the domain.

Re:Getting Your Domain Name Back

[Divebus]

That's trademarks. You have to use trademarks to keep them.

Brings up a question: if the ICANN (or whoever) is so bent over about following Trademark laws on infringers, why don't they also follow the "use it or lose it" part of the Trademark laws as well? That would be more balanced in this space.

Re:Getting Your Domain Name Back

[Dan541]

How can you tell if someone is using a domain?

~Dan

Re:Getting Your Domain Name Back

[Divebus]

How can you tell if someone is using a domain?

You can certainly tell when someone is squatting on a domain as opposed to having content that has anything to do with the name. The pages full of links on some web sites which looks exactly like the other 850,000 web sites these guys own should be the first tip. To me, that's not "using" the domain name. It's like scalping tickets. There are laws about that and it's a huge issue. Concerts are sold out in six seconds by scalpers using software to buy blocks of tickets for resale at 10x the box office rate.

There's no law against scalping domain names but cornering the market and slowly monopolizing names is already choking the availability of human readable domain names making the internet difficult to navigate. It's only going to get worse until most of the .com space is tied up in non-working names. Something needs to be done or the internet is toast. It's already toast in some circles.

I don't have a good solution to this... but what if the ICANN could mark a domain as being squatted and disqualify the name. If the domain squatter wanted $100,000 for a domain name, what if ICANN told the squatters "ok, pay us $100,000 to renew for a year or turn it loose and take your chances to buy it back for $35". Just a thought.

Re:Getting Your Domain Name Back

[Dan541]

How can you tell if someone is using a domain?

You can certainly tell when someone is squatting on a domain as opposed to having content that has anything to do with the name. The pages full of links on some web sites which looks exactly like the other 850,000 web sites these guys own should be the first tip. To me, that's not "using" the domain name.

How is it not using the domain? They are making money from advertisments a legitimate bussiness.

Secondly how does the use or non-use of a http Service determine if the domain is "Used" there are many other uses for domains besides webpages.

I can see the point your making but were do you draw the line? to me cybersquatting is not something that can be defined its just what other people think im sure we all have domains we like that are taken and probably think we have better uses for our desired names than the current registrant.

~Dan

Trademarks

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't give you any real advice, and IANAL, but do keep in mind that trademarks do not have to be registered in order to be valid - rather, they become trademarks when you use them, even if you don't register them.

Re:Trademarks

[Anonymous Coward]

A name becomes a trademark only when you use it for "trade", i.e. in business. Even to register a name, you need to indicate when you previously started using it in trade.

But the OP I would guess was not using it for commerce.

Re:Trademarks

[Spazmania]

You're thinking copyrights. Copyright vests as soon as you create the work.

For a trademark to be valid, you have to declare that its a trademark. You generally do this by placing the letters "TM" after the mark or R in a circle if you've registered the mark. If you just use the name and don't include that notification then it's not a trademark and you have no protection under trademark law.

Re:Trademarks

[ISayWeOnlyToBePolite]

For a trademark to be valid, you have to declare that its a trademark. You generally do this by placing the letters "TM" after the mark or R in a circle if you've registered the mark. If you just use the name and don't include that notification then it's not a trademark and you have no protection under trademark law.

Where did you get that information? It seems to contradict my small google research and certainly it's news to me.

Re:Trademarks

[Spazmania]

Perhaps I oversimplified. Let me put it to you this way:

If I open Bill's Diner and register the trademark, no one else can open a Bill's Diner anywhere in the US that there isn't already a Bill's Diner. If they do, I can sue and win.

If I open Bill's Diner and place a "TM" after it, no one else can open a Bill's Diner nearby. By placing the TM after it, I have claimed the trademark even though its a relatively generic name.

If I open Bill's Diner and do nothing, someone else can open a Bill's Diner a block away and there's very little I can do about it. Its pretty generic and there's no reason the other Bill's Diner should have suspected that I was claiming a mark.

You have a legal right to slap TM on anything that you could reasonably claim as a trademark. Doing so carries the specific legal meaning that you are claiming the mark. And trademark law is very slippery when it comes to how close you have to be to violate. If you want to claim a mark and don't at least put TM beside it, you're not adequately protected.

Re:Trademarks

[Reaperducer]

If I open Bill's Diner and register the trademark, no one else can open a Bill's Diner anywhere in the US that there isn't already a Bill's Diner.

A further ovresimplification. Most trademarks are not national in scope, they are state-by-state. Most companies register their trademarks with the Secretary of State in the states in which they do business, not at the federal level. It's usually about 20x cheaper (some states charge as little as $10 for five years).

If every company's trademarks were registered nationally, we'd be pretty close to being out of company names the way we're just about out of worthwhile domain names. How many "Grace's Cleaners" do you suppose there are across the nation?

Re:Trademarks

[Anonymous Coward]

All of this trademark discussion is totally wrong. The need to write "TM" disappeared years ago and has no relevance to anything, and trademarks can't be registered on the state level--it's the federal level. Rather than restating what's easy to research, you should go research.

Re:Trademarks

[tverbeek]

You don't have to put "TM" next to something for it to be a trademark. Doing that helps establish your use of it as a trademark, and registering it helps even more and gives additional legal rights, but all that's required is for you to use the mark in trade.

Re:Trademarks

[Reaperducer]

Sorry, AC. I am the holder of about a dozen trademarks registered in Texas and Illinois. It is YOU who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Here's a link to the Secretary of State's application form for registering a trademark in Illinois to get your started in recovering from your snarky dumb-assedness: http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/c2466.pdf

Yes, you can register trademarks state-by-state. You're the one who needs to do some research.

Keep Offering

[stevesh6]

They may not take the 100.00 offer right away. They'll probably come back with a ridiculous counter offer. Keep offering the 100, and they'll eventually take it.

This is sad news

[Thilo2]

I'm sorry, but unless you're a corporation with good lawers and a long breath you probably won't have any chance getting the domain back without paying the squatters what they want you to. I've seen this happen to so many domains. In a way, these domain farmers are parasites and no better than the ordinary spammer. I get really mad when I see another one of those generic pages that are packed with advertisements to even get additional revenue. The only way this could be fought would be to make it more expensive for these companies to register domains.

Sue

[mastershake_phd]

Sue, sue everybody. Sue the now defunct company that lost your domain. Sue the company that bought your domain. Sue the owners of said companies directly. Sue their parents, their wives, and their children. Sue their pets. Sue everybody!

Re:Sue

[Dogtanian]

Sue, sue everybody. Sue the now defunct company that lost your domain. Sue the company that bought your domain. Sue the owners of said companies directly. Sue their parents, their wives, and their children. Sue their pets. Sue everybody! Is this what happens when Keyser Söze goes down the legal route?

Re:Sue

[xonar]

Domain farming makes me angry enough to make this a reasonable course of action.

Re:Sue

[tarlong]

Sue everybody!

Hellooooo Suuuueee!

Re:Sue

[mrobinso]

Sue, sue everybody. Sue the now defunct company that lost your domain. Sue the company that bought your domain. Sue the owners of said companies directly. Sue their parents, their wives, and their children. Sue their pets. Sue everybody! How is this modded 5 funny? It's the most insightful bit of advise given. Sue bloody everybody and let a jury sort it out. Just the mere threat of that happening is sufficient to win a blinking contest with the likes of squatters and link farmers. Want to see how fast you can get your domain back? File a Notice of Intent and start attaching a Notice Of Pending Litigation against their real property. You'll probably have free hosting for the domain for a half dozen generations. .mike

Re:Sue

[laejoh]

Hey, even him?

Was it not yours?

[grahammm]

IANAL but surely if you had registered the domain then it was, at least until time for renewal, yours? So even if the hosting company went bust you should have been able to move it to a different hosting company.

In future use the trade mark rules

[Nomen Publicus]

It's too late for the person in the article, but if your domain name is important and doesn't infringe any existing trade marks, trade mark it immediately.

The domain now has no value to another as they cannot use or sell it without violating the trademark. You also have a much stronger position in the various appeal processes.

Re:In future use the trade mark rules

[wvmarle]

Trade marks are regional. Domains are not. Internet knows no boundaries; even if you register your tradermark in, say, the USA (this being Slashdot), it may not be valid in Hong Kong (where I happen to live). Or in Japan. Or any European country. So it may be a good idea in the first placve, it's not necessarily going to get your domain back cheaper or so.

Re:In future use the trade mark rules

[NormalVisual]

On the other hand, you're obligated to vigorously protect against any misuse of your trademark or else it's quite easy to lose it, in which case it does you no good. One should consider beforehand whether the domain will be worth the added legal expense. IANAL, not legal advice, etc.

Re:In future use the trade mark rules

[pongo000]

It's too late for the person in the article, but if your domain name is important and doesn't infringe any existing trade marks, trade mark it immediately.

Doesn't quite work this way, as the article submitter indicated that the domain name is meaningful only to the submitter. Might I suggest a more authoritative source, such as this link, instead of depending upon Slashdot for legal advice?

Re:In future use the trade mark rules

[Anonymous Coward]

First, never let a web host be all the contacts in a domain registration. It's hard to prove you're the registrant, admin, or billing contact when you're not the registrant, admin, or billing contact. Register the domain yourself, and configure the DNS to point to your web host's servers. If they don't like that, then move on, as many other big boys are okay with this.

Registering your trademark or servicemark (for services) with the USPTO helps, as long as someone else doesn't already have the domain in another legit service or industry. (Multiple people can register the same mark, as long as they're not in the same type of business. For example, you can probably register Dell for home painting services, without conflicting with Dell computers.)

Filing a DBA with your local county office also supports your claim. Hopefully years beforehand, not after the fact. Having a legit local business license also helps. If you're legit, do legit stuff.

Lastly, don't assume a parked domain is really parked. Maybe they don't want or need a home page (http://www.something.com) but are hosting other services on other subdomains or ports (http://ah-ha.something.com:8084) such as databases or emails. I have several domains that seem parked, but there are 100s of gigabytes of data and services being hosted, and those who know the URL get to the services. Not having WWW may make it seem not as worthwhile to try and hack. A way to find if a domain is more than just being parked is to do a Google search. Also try a DNS zone transfer (if the DNS server allows) and see what other subdomains exist. A port scan may work, but you'll probably piss off a firewall or TOS or two and get nuked.

Re:In future use the trade mark rules

[Pharmboy]

Have you ever trademarked a name? Several thousand dollars (our last was $8000, legal fees and all), and it takes a while. Not smart for the average joe. And as for the appeals process, the average trademark infringing case will cost you $100k or more in legal fees alone, which is why most people avoid them.

Sorry, but your advice is not good advice for the masses.

Re:In future use the trade mark rules

[SharpFang]

Actually, it could STILL work for the OP.

The ridiculous thing about Trademark law is that it works back in time. Unlike with patents, there's no 'prior art' to overturn it and unlike copyright which requires some level of creativity, as long as it's not a common word (but a phrase of 2 common words is ok) you can trademark it. And then you can sue everyone who uses it, even if they kept using it years before you were born.

Re:In future use the trade mark rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, but if your in the US and win the US government will still say the foreign business must pay for breaking US laws...

Re:In future use the trade mark rules

[mattlamb]

Yep its really easy, just place "TM" symbol after or next to your domain name on your website.
You can also go the whole hog and legalize it but free is good and will stand up in a court very strongly.

http://www.tm-it.com/first_time.htm lots good info here.

Wait

[Heston]

If the domain is as useless to anyone but yourself as you claim, it should be available after they find out it was a waste of monkey to farm.

Re:Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but it depends on how many monkeys they have to waste.

Re:Wait

[Opportunist]

They know it's valuable to someone. They didn't just register some random combination of letters. They checked which domains timed out and registered them, for exactly the purpose we see now. Someone wants it back and is willing to pay the extortion money.

Re:Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

If the domain is as useless to anyone but yourself as you claim, it should be available after they find out it was a waste of monkey to farm.

I really hate monkeys being wasted.

Re:Wait

[IBBoard]

...it was a waste of monkey to farm

So that's how they register all of these expiring domains: well trained and literate monkeys that are shackled to computers and then forced to read lists of expiring domains before repeatedly filling in the form required to register them!

Don't waste your spare monkey - set him folding, or running SETI or something!

Re:Wait

[Megane]

Don't waste your spare monkey - set him folding, or running SETI or something!

I would like to point out that they aren't called spare monkeys, they're called scratch monkeys.

Get a trademark

[Marcion]

IANAL, and I have no idea what the domain rules are with .com, what arbitration and so on you have to jump through first, but if it gets to court then it will help to go get a trademark, even if your business looks even close to real then it will look better than a farmed domain.

Please Clarify

[JoeCommodore]

So what I think you are saying is your registrar/hosting went bust and some other one picked up your registration (before it expired) and now claims it as wholly their own.

Is that what you are saying?

Re:Please Clarify

[mysidia]

That would depend on the agreement between customer and ISP. I.E. Whether the agreement b/w ISP and customer states that the domain belongs to the ISP or the customer.

Or whether the ISP is merely acting as an agent or bailee of the customer in registering and managing the domain on their behalf.

I guess if the ISP has already been liquidated; the time for the customer to file any necessary legal paperwork to claim THEIR property in possession by the company being liquidated has probably come and passed.

Scary. What is a good domain registrar or ...

[mikep.maine]

Scary. What is a good domain registrar or how do we all check to make sure we are not caught in the same dilemma ?

domain name squatters

[falconwolf]

I may be wrong but I think as long as the domain is kept current the registrar is owns the domain and nobody could take it, even if the host goes bust.

Falcon

No, go lower on the counter offer.

[iknownuttin]

They'll probably come back with a ridiculous counter offer. Keep offering the 100, and they'll eventually take it.

I would say start lowering it. They come back with $5,000: come back with $50.

Those people are out for easy money. Easy money should be peanuts or less.

Be prepared to walk so that they'll lose and they'll lose because the domain name is only good to the person who's responsible for this article. Meaning, after they're registration time is up, they'll abandon it themselves. Paying them is to only get it back sooner.

Re:No, go lower on the counter offer.

[Spazmania]

Believe it or not, those people are human beings too. They can be insulted and almost anyone can afford to walk away from $100 because the person offering insulted them.

Re:No, go lower on the counter offer.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Believe it or not, those people are human beings too.

That is unlikely. The kind of creature who does this, knowing that they will at best be taking advantage of another party's reputation and at worst actively damaging them to make a profit, is probably a lower life form. Even if their actions are technically legal and, at least for now, permitted by the domain registration authorities, those actions are still unethical at best. In other contexts, analogous behaviour would be bordering on criminal.

Re:No, go lower on the counter offer.

[Spazmania]

Nevertheless, you'll find that they respond to insult the same as any real human being. If you want to convince one of them to take a particular action, tossing an insult his way is not an effective strategy.

Re:No, go lower on the counter offer.

[Just Some Guy]

Believe it or not, those people are human beings too.

No they're not. The biggest question when dealing with them should be whether the assault charges are leveled by the police department or PETA.

Re:No, go lower on the counter offer.

[oncehour]

Actually, tossing an insult at someone is a *very* effective strategy for convincing them to take a particular action. There's fewer response choices available for insults, and the pride of most people reduces their effectiveness at just ignoring insults altogether. Intelligent social engineers make use of insults just as much if not more than compliments due to the fact that compliments can be looked upon with suspicion and a reverse course of action applied. People rarely consider that they may be being insulted to cause a specific course of action.

Re:No, go lower on the counter offer.

[iknownuttin]

Believe it or not, those people are human beings too. They can be insulted and almost anyone can afford to walk away from $100 because the person offering insulted them.

OK. That's negotiation. Unless you're Amazon, being without your domain name for a while really isn't that big of a deal. Dirt bags like those people who grabbed that domain name shouldn't be rewarded.

Re:No, go lower on the counter offer.

[gomoX]

Sadly I don't think that works when the particular action involved happens to be "giving away value at a discount price".

If you disagree with that then I have a bridge on sale that you might be interested in, you dimwitted fuck.

Re:No, go lower on the counter offer.

[toddestan]

I think that's why the original poster added in "Be prepared to walk..." when he suggested that.

Really, I wouldn't offer $100 anyway if I wanted the domain back, as an offer of $100 shows that you are interested in it, and that you're willing to offer a non-trivial (by my standards atleast) amount of money to get it back. In which case they will likely come back with some high priced counter offer, and so forth. Seems like an effective way dick around with them and to waste their time, if you really didn't care about the domain much in the first place.

If I wanted it back, I would offer something at the just above the "not worth our time" amount for them, probably around $30 or so. If you stick to your guns and make it clear that you won't pay any more than that, they'll probably end up accepting it since they aren't going to get anything otherwise.

Re:No, go lower on the counter offer.

[oncehour]

That was just a pisspoor example. A better attempt at the bridge sale would be to imply that I am unintelligent or unmanly after previously having implied buying a bridge to be intelligent/manly. The same method can work with "giving away value at a discount price", it just requires a creative application.

Re:No, go lower on the counter offer.

[gomoX]

Ok, but can you portray an equivalent situation involving a domain sale by a cybersquatter?

Buy domains directly from registrars

[VGPowerlord]

Disclaimer: I don't currently own any domains.

Things like this are why all the domains I've bought in the past have been bought directly from a Registrar.

Hosts going out of business is not the only danger with domains. There's also the practice of hosts keeping the domain if you ever choose to switch hosts.

As for registrars, the only advice I can give is to avoid GoDaddy, as they cave to big corporate interests.

Re:Buy domains directly from registrars

[rho]

Good domain registrars:

Gandi.net

DynDNS.org

Not the cheapest, but both are Good Folks(TM).

Re:Buy domains directly from registrars

[Anonymous Coward]

That's stupid. The article you're linking to refers to a web hosting issue and not a registrar one. I have no allegiance for or against GoDaddy but I certainly wouldn't use that article in making a decision.

Re:Buy domains directly from registrars

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahaha i remember the days when all the slashdotters couldnt shut up about how much they liked godaddy

Re:Buy domains directly from registrars

[Anonymous Coward]

Another to add to your list:

EasyDNS. Also not the cheapest, but I've used them for years with absolutely no complaints. A few of years ago, they sent a hugely apologetic email stating that their technical support department was unavailable for one hour during the time period when the entire east coast was without power. DNS service, however, was unaffected.

Re:Buy domains directly from registrars

[fldrniko]

I host sites! When I register domains on behalf of my customers I always put their contact information under their name. My business name may show as the 'Technical' contact - ONLY! They paid for it -- they own it! Should I go bust, the domain owner can go to the registrar's site to log-in and manage their site(s) using the same username and password.
The domain in question here obviously went into unpaid mode. Where it was then immediately picked up by another person. Unfortunately, this other person is in the business of purchasing domains to profit by their resale value.
On the flip side I have heard in the past of a webmaster harvesting a domain from a customer. As it has happened to one of my customers. This should be illegal! If you pay for a domain, it should be yours! Period!

This recently happened to me.

[J. T. MacLeod]

Domain farming causes me no small amount of anger in principle, but it recently bit me, as well. Due to problems with my registrar (joker.com--which after years of service without complaint I now would recommend NO ONE use), a domain I managed for some one else was snagged by a domain farmer.

This was upsetting enough by itself, but what really caused me to become enraged is that the same company that bought it and sold it back to me [i]IS A LICENSED REGISTRAR[/i]. Granted, they do it under a couple of different names, but it's quite clearly all the same operation, or at least willing co-operation. The fact that this sort of thing is allowed to go on shows that either ICANN allows it or is completely inept in regulating it. The only question is whether they are incompetent or swayed by money at some point in the process.

Re:This recently happened to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

what were your problems with joker ? they are great.

Re:This recently happened to me.

[sjwest]

Odd - We use Joker, and despite running a fierce email server, there renewal alerts and wrdp checks things do get through. Mind you we are not loons that block email from europe because it is not in america that some folk in america (?aol?) think good logic.

Being european i prefer to use a large eu based registrar rather than an american reg like godaddy who run some rather dubious scams and documented here in slashdot.

And no we dont work for, or sell Joker services.

Re:This recently happened to me.

[Megane]

I've been using Joker since 2000 and had no problems. But I only use them as a registrar. Maybe the above poster was using them for some other service like DNS. But apparently he doesn't care enough to tell us what the problem was.

Think bigger

[Hexedian]

The real solution involves finding the domain farmer's home address. The real solution also involves burly men and baseball bats.

Re:Think bigger

[couchslug]

"The real solution also involves burly men and baseball bats."

My first reactions to that are "yuck" and "ouch".

How it happened makes a huge difference

[dpm67]

I have a fair amount of experience with such situations, mostly from helping various clients, and in my experience it largely depends on how it happened. Did you simply allow the domain to expire and then someone else snatched it up? If so, you are pretty much just plain out of luck. If it is not a pre-existing trademark of yours, then you really have no basis for trying to reclaim it under ICANN dispute resolution policies. If the new registrant somehow took control of it under false pretense - like submitted falsified statements and/or documentation to dispute the domain, then you most certainly have grounds to file your own dispute. If that's the case, then you should initiate a dispute via the registrar you normally use for your domain registrations. If it doesn't really fall into those extremes, then an ICANN dispute is probably not going to lead anywhere and your only option would be some kind of legal action, but that is not likely to have any different kind of outcome either.

Wait! Patience! They may be a "taster"..

[thatseattleguy]

I have some experience here. My strong advice for now:

Wait. Don't contact them. Don't make any waves.

Often - very often - a domain farmer picks up the domain for just a week or so (no matter how long the WHOIS says it's really registered for) - and waits to see if the pay-per-click ads generate enough revenue to make it worth keeping. So often the best thing you can do is...nothing. Don't visit the site (generates traffic), don't contact them (tells them they have a chance of milking you for $), don't do anything - just sit and wait. Often the name will get dropped and another farmer will pick it up immediately - but if you're patient and check back in with the WHOIS, you should eventually see it free again for long enough to grab it.

This may sound ridiculous, but it's how the domain name economy is currently working, courtesy of weak ICAAN rules. Make it work in your favor - you want that one name, but they want 100,000 that generate enough revenue to make up the low ($3.50/year? can't remember) ICAAN fees necessary to hold on to it. (They know WIPO arbitration is going to cost you $1500+legal fees, so in that route the numbers are on their side.)

This has worked with the .com versions of two different domain names held by non-profit clients of mine just this year. Good luck.

/thatseattleguy/

Re:Wait! Patience! They may be a "taster"..

[Bert64]

It might be fun to show fake interest in worthless domain names...
If you can make these squatters think your interested in some pointless domain, they're more likely to hold on to it for longer and try to sell it back to you for an extortionate rate.
So we find some worthless domains, offer well below what they want, and when their counter offer comes in just say you'l wait for it to expire... Get them to renew the worthless domains for a few more years.

Re:Wait! Patience! They may be a "taster"..

[fermion]

This also happened to me. I wanted to me when I wanted to transfer a domain. I tired to so do, and was not able to get a release through the web interface. No problem, i thought, i will just wait for it to almost expire. That led me to learn that I could not transfer a domain within 30 days of it expiring.

When it expired, it was immediately converted to a ad/spam/link farm type of page. After several weeks it was released and I was able to get it back.

I am not sure how businesses deal with this. On most products, one can get a 10, 50 or even 99 year lease, and if something happens to the agent, the courts protect your right. OTOH, I guess this is all part of freewheeling new economy, in which the ordinary laws of economics and physics have been suspended.

Re:Wait! Patience! They may be a "taster"..

[whoever57]

Wait. Don't contact them. Don't make any waves.

Often - very often - a domain farmer picks up the domain for just a week or so (no matter how long the WHOIS says it's really registered for) - and waits to see if the pay-per-click ads generate enough revenue to make it worth keeping. So often the best thing you can do is...nothing.

This is excellent advice -- I would add one more comment -- don't even visit the web page.

I was able to pick up a domain that I wanted this way recently. I knew that the domain would not be renewed (defunct company) so I put an order into goDaddy's domain backordering service. Someone else snagged the domain, but after a week, it was available again and I got it.

This works because of a huge hole in the registering process -- the registrars have 1 week to pay the fee or give up the domain. Thus a registrar can "test-drive" a domain for a week. If ICANN got rid of this ability to return the domain without payment it would go a long way towards removing registration abuses.

Re:Wait! Patience! They may be a "taster"..

[moezaly]

And this is how it worked for me too when someone in my company forgot to renew the domain.... if its not an important cmpany domain or something, let it be for a month or two and then its all yours

Re:Wait! Patience! They may be a "taster"..

[Bartab]

I had a domain name that has no universal meaning, and had no website or usage attached (I didn't even get mail at it). DNS did nothing but point it at my static-IP address, which was "Hi! Welcome to Debian Apache!"

I let it lapse, and within 48 hours it was picked up by a farmer company, and still is to this day, four years later.

I like their webpage. "This domain name has just been registered for one of our customers. If you're interested in purchasing this domain name please contact..."

Re:Wait! Patience! They may be a "taster"..

[swell]

I just checked GoDaddy to verify that they will try to grab a name for you:

" If this name expires or is cancelled by the registrant we'll try to grab it the instant it becomes available." [forgive them the missspelling]

I'm sure others offer a similar service. They may be able to grab a name in the milliseconds after it comes back on the market.

Re:Wait! Patience! They may be a "taster"..

[neoform]

I had something like this happen to me.

I had registered djneoform.com (my dj name) while signing up for a web host, I later found out that they did not offer transferring services, that way I was trapped using their hosting services. The only way to regain control was to cancel and buy the domain once it was released. I did that, except some domain camper registered it before I could. I had to go 2 years without a website with my official dj name (I used djnfrm.com for that time). The thief offered to sell for $500. I then that I would *never* buy the domain from them, no matter how low the price and that no one else in the world had any interest in that domain since it was my dj name, a name that no one else used. Eventually the camper got the picture and just let it expire.

Morals of the story:

A) Never pay extortion fees to domain hostage takers

B) Never use a web host that wont allow you to transfer your domain to a different service.

Re:Wait! Patience! They may be a "taster"..

[Anonymous Coward]

I would wait it out. A while ago I wanted some .WS and .BIZ domains for generic terms in our industry, which I figured was cheap advertising to get customers guessing URLs which redirects them to our main site. The parkers wanted $10K and $25K, but 3 years later they were all wide open (.WS never really took off) and I got them for $8. I cannot tell if the visits were real people or spider bots, because we had no orders from those visits. But last year we ran a 1/4 page ad in a one of our industry's magazines with only the URL, and we picked up a few new customers. Not big money, but still a satisfying check in the "win" column.

Re:Wait! Patience! They may be a "taster"..

[skware]

I agree, this exact method worked for me also. Just wait it out. I had to wait an entire year, but once I got it back twas all good.

Please Clarify

[chill]

Names are registered with Registrars. Hosting is done at ISPs. Are you saying your now-defunct ISP where the site was hosted was also a Registrar?

If that was the case, when your site was registered was it in your name or the ISP's name? Who was Technical contact, you or the ISP?

If it was in the ISPs name and they went defunct and were bought, then you're screwed.

how?

[Anonymous Coward]

what are the instructions on how to do this and how much does it cost?

Owning a domain name is like owning a home

[mrkitty]

registrar = bank
renewal fee = mortgage
not paying renew fee = foreclosure

You didn't pay attention to the expiration date/when a payment was due and the registrar(bank) resold your property. You're SOL.

Re:Owning a domain name is like owning a home

[ls -la]

Did you even read the *summary*? Unless the summary is quite misleading, he didn't forget to pay the registration, the provider went out of business and he somehow lost the registration, which is *not* how ICANN is supposed to work.

Re:Owning a domain name is like owning a home

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we need a RTFS now too?

Re:Owning a domain name is like owning a home

[Reziac]

So this is more like your country being overrun by foreign troops, who then confiscate your home?

Great Idea

[explosivejared]

In this course of action you're bound to find somebody that's wronged you. Dumped by a girl in high school, thats a cool million for pain and suffering. The basketball coach laughed at you for trying out, another cool million for discrimination against your geek heritage. Your parents kick you out of their basement... that's a tricky one... ah! Sue your mother for medical malpractice all those times she gave you chicken soup instead of taking you to a real doctor. By this time, you're so mega rich that you've forgotten about the jerk that stole your domain. So you go and send them a thank you card for sending you in the right direction on your path of litigiousness paved with gold.

Re:Great Idea

[whoever57]

In this course of action you're bound to find somebody that's wronged you. Dumped by a girl in high school,

This is a /. reader we are discussing. In order to be dumped by a girl in high school, he would have had to have had a girlfriend in high school. As a /. reader, this is implausible.

Re:Great Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a /. reader we are discussing. In order to be dumped by a girl in high school, he would have had to have had a girlfriend in high school. As a /. reader, this is implausible.

Well, I did have a girlfriend in high school, so there goes your theory.

She wasn't very popular, and her hands were kind of big, kind of tall, too, but I didn't mind.

Re:Great Idea

[Antique Geekmeister]

Hey, I'm a /. reader, too. It's not hard to get dumped by someone you never actually went out with, believe me!

Certified Offer

[Anonymous Coward]

Make an official offer using Network Solutions' Certified Offer service:

http://www.certifiedofferservice.com/

That way the current registrant can be sure they will receive the money and you can be sure you will receive the domain.

(name removed)

[JackMeyhoff]

Why bother posting the article here if you dont give the facts? Such as the COMPANY NAME? Waste of time.

Re: (name removed)

[stonecypher]

Because then other people would try to buy the domain and resell it to the poor sap as arbitrage, a thousand slashdotters would look at the page generating ad revenue, and so on. There's no reason to give the company name, and there are ample reasons not to.

who owned the domain?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the domain was owned by you, and you haven't signed any forms to transfer it, then you should ask your registar to please show you the document signed by you that approves of the transfer.

If they can't show it, then threaten to sue and then sue.

Registars need a signed transfer document from the owner to transfer domains. However if the domain was never on your name anyway then your shit out of luck.

A few months back this even got stricter because domain squaters where sending out transfer forms to companies with a bullshit letter that they should sign it. (it still amazes me that that actually worked) So now a days you can also lock your domain name, which means that before the domain can get transfered even more hoops have to be jumped. And i believe depending on where you are, theres a quarantine time, before the name can be released again.

Process Issues for Registrar Bankruptcies

[NetSettler]

I had a .com domain name relevant only to me, no legal trademark, registered and hosted at a provider that went bust. When attempting to re-host the domain I discovered, ...

This account seems somehow wrong. Did you leave out some material information from the story?

Did this happen to you on a yearly boundary? If not, and if you had a registration on the domain that was good for a year, why couldn't you just go to another domain provider and identify yourself for a transfer? Was the account in good standing? Am I confused, or is this information not a matter of public record that extends beyond the end of your term of registration? Is the registrar at which you bought it the only source of record for such information? That would sound terribly dangerous as a single-point-of-failure for the web in the case of any kind of disaster, much less bankruptcy.

Additionally, did you get no notice? Did you just come in one day and find that your domain no longer responded and that all domains at that registrar were up for grabs? If so, that again seems very weird. I thought a bankruptcy required some court intervention at least for the purpose of asset divvying, and the notion that the registered domains were not an asset that required deliberative action seems odd to me. Possible, certainly--I'm not a lawyer and don't know the process. But odd nevertheless.

Did you act at the moment of the bankruptcy--or did you wait? That is, was your problem the result of the bankruptcy or your failure to act quickly? I realize these issues are probably sad and embarrassing, and I'm not meaning to rub salt in a wound. But Slashdot articles inform people about how the world works, and in exchange for the attention and good advice you offer, I think it's good to offer a complete accounting of the story.

Are you sure you're not leaving out some information? Perhaps the left-out information is not relevant to the question you were asking, but implicit in the question you were asking is alerting people to something that might happen to them. And I'd like to understand better the process by which this could happen to someone else so that we all, as a community, might understand if there's a process issue that needs fixing to assure proactively, rather than reactively, that this shouldn't happen in the future.

Sorry about your problem, btw. Losing a domain happened to a friend of mine by the more usual means of just failing to pay for it for a while. Someone scooped it up and they were left paying a couple hundred dollars to get it back. I agree that's a nuisance, but it does argue for keeping payments up to date on things you care about.

Obtaining a new domain?

[HockeyPuck]

One problem that many people run into is finding a 'non-parked' domain to register...

False modesty on your part

[AmigaBen]

Let me get this straight. You claim a company has intentionally wronged you via dirty business practices, and you want to protect them by leaving their name out?

Seems like good intentions gone wrong.

Re:False modesty on your part

[mindwar23]

Perhaps it was redacted by /. editors.

Re:False modesty on your part

[AmigaBen]

That's certainly a possibility that occurred to me, although I would hope they'd have put an 'editors note' had they done it. At any rate, my comment is aimed at whatever party did the obfuscating. :)

Getting a domain...

[tristian_was_here]

I think the only way you can get rights back to that domain was if it was a Trade Mark of some company.

Block domain squatters

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a list of domain squatters that you should block.

8.15.231.115
8.15.231.139
63.214.247.170
64.20.33.115
64.20.33.131
64.20.49.210
64.27.14.2
64.40.116.41
64.186.56.73
66.45.231.154
66.45.254.244
66.45.254.245
66.154.25.64
66.246.195.42
68.178.232.143
69.46.226.166
69.46.228.43
82.98.86.163
82.98.86.170
82.98.86.171
82.98.86.178
204.13.160.26
204.13.160.129
208.73.212.12
208.254.26.132
208.254.26.140
209.62.21.206
209.85.51.151
209.200.153.152
216.34.131.135
216.40.33.251
216.40.33.252
217.68.70.69

Blocking this IP address will prevent your browser from visiting ad pages when you enter a typo in the domain name, or an domain squatter have stolen a domain.

pinkfud-fuckers

[G3ckoG33k]

Excuse us non-native English speakers, what does "pinkfud-fuckers" stand for? I could not find it on Google.

.

Re:pinkfud-fuckers

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like nonsense to me... and I am a native english speaker

Re:pinkfud-fuckers

[Anonymous Coward]

In English, it is common to append the word "fuck", or a derivative, to nouns (in this case 'pink-fud') in an effort to be offensive or affect an insult. On the internet, it is also common to find people who pursue, almost exclusively, offensive and insulting behaviors. Therefore, on the internet, you'll often find comments in English like "Goatse-fucker", "fud-fucker", "shill-fucker", "Digg-fucker", etc, which are properly understood as part of the problem in giving fuck-wits (reversed order) access to powerful communication tools. Those dumb internet-fucks--I'm sure you can see how this works now.

mod parent up!

[RandyOo]

If any post on this topic deserves a +5 Insightful, this is the one.

4Chan had this happen last night

[autocracy]

I'd say, follow their story and see what they do... http://4chanstatus.blogspot.com/

Re:4Chan had this happen last night

[EvilBrak89]

That's different. 4chan had their domain hijacked. Their domain did not expire.

Re:4Chan had this happen last night

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say they need about tree fiddy.

Re:4Chan had this happen last night

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn you, Monstah! I ain't givin you no tree fiddy!

"NO PARKING!"

[Half-pint HAL]

Domain name farming should be killed.

How about a parked-site blacklist? It could be implemented by a Firefox plugin, or an app that modifies the hosts file for users of other browsers. I can imagine it wouldn't be hard to convince even the least IT literate user that this is a Good Thing.

HAL.

Re:"NO PARKING!"

[bvimo]

>How about a parked-site blacklist?

Could the black list be incorporated into OpenDNS http://www.opendns.com/ ?

Re:"NO PARKING!"

[Half-pint HAL]

No way -- a DNS has to be neutral. This would need to be seperate, with users having to choose to use it.

HAL.

Re:"NO PARKING!"

[bvimo]

OpenDNS isn't neutral http://www.opendns.com/features/overview/

'Block the bad sites and whitelist the good.'

Re:"NO PARKING!"

[Half-pint HAL]

When they say bad sites they mean ones with a pretty clear form of "bad": fishing, not suitable for children etc. Blanket burying of business practices you personally disagree with? The totalitarianism is strong in this one....

One step away is safer: a solution installed by individuals on firewalls, proxies or PCs. Then it's "configuration", not "censorship". (IE it is unquestionably "opt-in".)

HAL.

Types of registrars

[Animats]

Domain registrars come in several types:

• ISPs who register domains in their name on your behalf. Many "free domain with hosting" deals are like this. This is strictly for throwaway domains, not for anything serious.
• Resellers of domain registration. These are "affiliates" of actual registrars. Don't use them.
• Accredited ICANN registrars who are primarily domain speculators. There are hundreds of these, most of them false fronts. "enom1.com", "enom2.com", ... "enom471.com" are examples.
• Real registrars, consumer grade Go Daddy is at this level. Low rates, bad service, policies that give the registrar discretionary authority to delete the domain.
• Real registrars, commercial grade A bit more upscale. Network Solutions is at this level. They're good enough for "ibm.com".
• Real registrars, national brand grade MarkMonitor is in this business. They register domains like "google.com" and "ford.com". If anything goes wrong with your domain, alarms go off, and technicians and lawyers descend on the problem. If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

Re:Types of registrars

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your assesment. Moral of the story is don't be a cheap prick! Pony up the $35 that Network Solutions wants for Domain registration. I've got 7 or 8 domains that I maintain through them myself. If paying an extra couple of dollars a month for peace of mind breaks your bank, you shouldn't bother buying a domain name.

Re:Types of registrars

[pongo000]

What a silly, inaccurate post. Despite what the parent is inferring, no ICANN-accredited registrar can simply steal a domain name you rightfully own and appropriate it for themselves or someone else. A "throwaway domain"? What, exactly, is that? A domain I register might be very dear to me, and I certainly wouldn't consider it a "throwaway domain." Properly registered and locked against transfer, it doesn't really matter what registrar you use.

Sure, there are differing levels of customer service, but other than that, there is simply nothing to support the parent's claims.

There might even be some libelous elements to the parent post, considering that the parent has not provided any evidence that supports his claims.

C'mon, moderators. Don't fall victim to slashthink.

Re:Types of registrars

[pongo000]

Sorry...parent is "implying," not "inferring."

The Grammar Nazi can rest easy now...

Re:Types of registrars

[elronxenu]

Network Solutions has appalling customer service.

I transferred all my domains away from them a few years ago. Their systems were primitive; their processes were set up to make it as hard as possible to make changes, particularly any change like "transfer a domain away from them".

And they're very expensive. It's not about being stingy, it's about not getting value for the $35 a year or whatever it is they charge, when other registrars will provide better service for $8 or less.

Re:Types of registrars

[Anonymous Coward]

So, can anyone recommend registrars at the "real registrars, commercial grade" for the .ca and .us ccTLDs? Preferably, a single outlet that handles both, but I'll deal with two separate organizations if it's advisable.

Re:Types of registrars

[Anonymous Coward]

> no ICANN-accredited registrar can simply steal a domain name you rightfully
> own and appropriate it for themselves or someone else.

Wow, you have no experience with domain names. Anyone can, and will, take your domain name. At peak, I had just over 1,900 of them that I hosted, and quite a few of them have been stolen. I always hated to lose customers that way. Network Solutions is like a bank with a wide open door and no security guards. They have put no safegards into place.

Re:It's called speculation, not farming

[Anonymous Coward]

Except in this case he already *owned* the domain. However, the registrar went out of business and somebody else bought it through another registrar. It would be like if you mortgaged a house through your bank for a while, then your bank went out of business and some guy came along and mortgaged the house you're currently living in through another bank. It sounds like he didn't perform the steps required to retain ownership in the time limit provided, though. So while it's probably technically legal and proper it's still kind of a dickish thing to do.

I know how he feels

[Yeechang Lee]

I totally sympathize with Lost_my_regs' dilemma because I've had the same thing happen to me. I'm still fighting!

Sincerely,

Mr. Apple X. Ibm

Re:It's called speculation, not farming

[tehniobium]

Technically...its NOT a zero-sum game.

The problem is that the domain farmers make money from owning the domain name...through Google adsense for domains. (see http://www.google.com/domainpark/), which gives a positive expected return to the person who owns more domain names.

Even if the dilemma was zero-sum I still wouldn't agree with the way this works - if an investor buys a property he will sell it to you a year later...perhaps around double the price, if you are seriously unlucky. When a bulk-registrar registers a domain name for 10$ or whatever, he'll try to charge you something along the lines of 1000 times that amount if you try to buy it back.

The is free-market gone very very bad. In my opinion.

Googles the one we should really be mad at

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO googles policies exist to make money for google. Their do no evil crap extends only to the management of the search index. They don't seem to care about the fact that their actions are directly funding most of the spammy crap on the Internet. Running a domain parking ad service just adds insult to injury.

One way to get it back....

[pokopoko3k]

A friend missed renewing her domain and it was snatched up instantly by a farmer who wanted her to make an offer to reclaim it. it was definitely a unique name that would be of no use to anyone who didn't have her (very unusual) name and her line of work.

A lawyer friend sent a letter to the new owner, basically saying the obvious: you have no use for this domain, and you need to give it back or we'll come after you.

The company returned the domain to her instantly, with apologies for their "mistake".

I'm sure the letter arriving on stationary from a huge, powerful international law firm didn't hurt.

Anyway, what they are doing is obviously cybersquatting, which is illegal. And if they're trying to make a quick buck here and there, they certainly can't afford to defend themselves against thousands of lawsuits.

Re:One way to get it back....

[Buran]

What did they do that was illegal? Your friend didn't pay her renew fees, and so the domain expired. Meaning, it was free for anyone else to register.

The new owner should have thrown the letter into the recycle bin, as your friend knew that not paying would cause her domain to be released for re-registration.

I don't like domain squatters any more than you do, but I like "look at me, ME ME ME ME FIRST!" I'm-entitled-to-everything jerks even less.

Re:One way to get it back....

[phoenixwade]

A friend missed renewing her domain and it was snatched up instantly by a farmer who wanted her to make an offer to reclaim it. it was definitely a unique name that would be of no use to anyone who didn't have her (very unusual) name and her line of work.

A lawyer friend sent a letter to the new owner, basically saying the obvious: you have no use for this domain, and you need to give it back or we'll come after you.

The company returned the domain to her instantly, with apologies for their "mistake".

I'm sure the letter arriving on stationary from a huge, powerful international law firm didn't hurt.

Anyway, what they are doing is obviously cybersquatting, which is illegal. And if they're trying to make a quick buck here and there, they certainly can't afford to defend themselves against thousands of lawsuits. Either you left out an important bit of information in your anecdote, the "Cybersquatter" blinked in the game of chicken, or this is a cute story that propagates a myth.

I can register any domain I want (and do look at the recently available lists most registrars offer to their clients) without any legal ramifications... The only time it's illegal, as I understand the rules, is when a domain is grabbed up with the intention of profiting off of someones trademark and bad faith registration can be demonstrated (I remember the Mike Rowe Soft thing from a few years back... He was fine until he offered to sell the domain to Microsoft, at that time, the extraordinary fee (Several grand for the domain I believe) was proof of bad faith...

Re:One way to get it back....

[pokopoko3k]

I think you missed the point. They obviously have no use for the domain name www.akikosmithbakery.com (not her real name or business) and so they were clearly squatting on it. There is indeed a law against cybersquatting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting) and while IANAL, in principle this is the kind of thing it should prevent. Even from a non-legalistic point of view: everybody has occasionally made a mistake and not paid a bill on time. Whether it's due to an emergency situation, carelessness, or whatever doesn't really matter; a small mistake shouldn't invalidate all of the time and effort you put into your site, your brand, etc. These bottom-feeders who want to profit from this mistake are doing nothing of value, just messing up the system. i'm happy to see them lose. So in this case, justice was done and the dickheads lost. p.s. look at me me me me first, i'm entitled to everything! oops, did i just say that out loud?

Re:One way to get it back....

[Buran]

Maybe. But the rules are rules; you lost it, and you didn't renew it. You knew when you registered a domain that it wasn't permanently yours. You have to keep paying. You aren't exempt. If someone else wants to use that domain name for whatever you want -- and there was no mention of it being a protected mark -- then they can. That's the rules. The rules apply to everybody.

If she wanted to be able to whine that her stupidity lost her her domain, she should have registered it as a trademark. If it had been registered, that would have been mentioned in the post (although if I'm wrong I want to know; but in that case, a trademark law firm would have been sending the letter).

Don't want to lose your hard work?

Don't do something stupid like forget to pay your bills.

Don't like it?

Don't be stupid.

(Yes. I have done very stupid things before, but I knew the rules applied to me too. I dealt with it. I didn't become an entitlement whore who expected other people to give up things that were rightfully theirs).

Re:One way to get it back....

[Fulcrum of Evil]

So if microsoft forgot to renew a domain they owned (like taht'd ever happen), I could jump it myself and do whatever I like? Rules are rules, after all.

Re:One way to get it back....

[tsu doh nimh]

in my experience, domain squatters are more likely to be domain tasters, in that they are only looking to see if your domain generates enough weekly traffic to warrant the $6 registration fee per year. If your site had a few dozen visitors a week, I'm sorry to report that you will probably lose the domain. However, if it was a hobby site and generated very few visitors, I would simply check back every few days for a couple of weeks to see if it has become available again. I know that sounds like lame advice, but it often works.

Re:One way to get it back....

[barista]

I think that happened to Hotmail a few years ago.

Re:One way to get it back....

[Squalish]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act

If it included her distinctive name and business, the squatter is liable. And regardless, even assuming he wasn't, the squatter would need to contest a subpeona that's likely in a different state, after consulting a lawyer, et cetera, et cetera.

The marginal cost for bulk domains is something like 20-50 cents per year. One lawsuit which costs a thousand dollars to have dismissed costs the squatter thousands of names he could otherwise potentially profit from.

Re:One way to get it back....

[Fulcrum of Evil]

And you missed the part where cybersquatting is illegal. Never mind that it was trademarked - just not registered. Absent the law, you could make a case that a vanity domain establishes an online identity, so it's not much of a stretch to claim a specific sort of trademark. Of course, this is unnecessary, since we have a law.

Re:One way to get it back....

[Buran]

So in other words you're saying that once one person registers a domain, no one can ever use it again?

Gee, in that case, then the system must never allow domains to expire, must not have any mechanism for transferring them to another registrant, must not have any way for domains to be bought and sold.

Oh, wait. It has all those things.

So that argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Right answer: register your domain as a trademark.
Right answer: set up an autorenew on your domain so that you don't have to remember.
Right answer: file a WIPO domain dispute if you really feel you have a valid case.

Wrong answer: be an entitlement bitch and use lawyers to extort property away from its owners.

Re:One way to get it back....

[pokopoko3k]

Wow, i certainly got a lot of negative feedback, considering i was one of the few actually answering the O.P.'s plea-- and with a method that i've actually seen succeed. (Yeah I know, this is slashdot.) But anyway, i'd say that yes, the cybersquatter blinked. And there were some other interesting and shady details. I went back to my original emails and found this, which they'd sent to the friend who lost her domain: --- If another party has already registered the domain name you wanted, you may be interested in using Afternic.com's Virtual Broker service. This service allows you to make an unsolicited offer on a registered or taken domain name. Afternic.com is a leading domain resale site and wholly owned subsidiary of Register.com. --- I love their ability to solicit an "unsolicited offer" ;) Anyway, even without that, the bad faith in the whole thing is obvious. Either they bought it intending to illegally profit off of her established brand and falsely represent themselves as her, or they bought it in bad faith intending to ransom it to her. If it was usedcars.com it might be different but it was a very specific url, which it sounds like the O.P. had as well.

Re:One way to get it back....

[Fulcrum of Evil]

So in other words you're saying that once one person registers a domain, no one can ever use it again?

Sure you can, so long as it's not simply extorting money from the previous owner.

Right answer: register your domain as a trademark.

Trademarks exist even when not registered. Of course, a nasty letter from a lawyer is cheap and effective.

Re:One way to get it back....

[pokopoko3k]

Dude, the law was on her side. Are you saying that if somebody goes to a lawyer when they've been legally wronged, that makes them an "entitlement whore?" Or do we have a tiny axe to grind here...? But besides, let's use common sense. Is it really about trademarking every single thing, dotting every i and crossing every t and going deep into legalese, or else you deserve to get screwed? I hate that kind of thinking. In that world, my friend, who was trying to start a (very) small but totally legitimate business for herself with very little funding or experience, has no chance against predatory practices of these shady bastards, while only big companies who can spend millions trademarking their every fart can succeed. That world sucks. You don't have to trademark every damn thing anyway. Has Steve Jobs trademarked his name? Well, probably, but even before he had, you couldn't go around saying you were him. Same principle. It's in the law, but it's also common sense.

Re:One way to get it back....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong answer: be an entitlement bitch and use lawyers to extort property away from its owners.

That fine and dandy. But I don't hear your sorry ass types complaining when large corporations tie up the courts with their bullshit or using the courts to crush some small business.

Get over yourself.

Re:One way to get it back....

[Dan541]

I think you missed the point. They obviously have no use for the domain name www.akikosmithbakery.com (not her real name or business) and so they were clearly squatting on it. There is indeed a law against cybersquatting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting) and while IANAL, in principle this is the kind of thing it should prevent.

Even from a non-legalistic point of view: everybody has occasionally made a mistake and not paid a bill on time. Whether it's due to an emergency situation, carelessness, or whatever doesn't really matter; a small mistake shouldn't invalidate all of the time and effort you put into your site, your brand, etc. These bottom-feeders who want to profit from this mistake are doing nothing of value, just messing up the system. i'm happy to see them lose.

So in this case, justice was done and the dickheads lost.

p.s. look at me me me me first, i'm entitled to everything! oops, did i just say that out loud? Try not paying your rent or morgage for over a year and see what happens!

Trademarks are pointless they are only valid in the jurisdiction you register them in.

I personally belive trademark should have no place with top-level domain names.

In australia .com.au and .net.au domains require a trademark inorder to register them, considering .com is an international domain I fail to see why U.S. law should play any part of the system.
Maybe you pro trademark people should ask the .us registry operator if they can impliment U.S trademarks into the United States domain space (.us)

If Microsoft fail to renew microsoft.com I can register it for myself just as they can do the same to me we are all playing by the same rules so Pay your registation ontime and dont go crying to lawers for something thats your own fault.

~Dan

Re:One way to get it back....

[Jimithing DMB]

So if microsoft forgot to renew a domain they owned (like taht'd ever happen), I could jump it myself and do whatever I like? Rules are rules, after all.

Funny you should mention this because Microsoft did indeed forget to renew microsoft.com a few years ago. Some guy bought it and pointed it back at the servers so microsoft.com would keep working and then called MS and said.. uhh.. hey, you probably want your domain back.

As far as I know, MS paid him for the registration fee and maybe a small amount as a thank you for keeping microsoft.com up and running but that was about it.

Re:One way to get it back....

[ILongForDarkness]

The linked to wikipedia article only mentions trademarks. Also it says that the claimant has to prove that "the trademark owner's mark is distinctive or famous". Maybe they could prove the distinctive part, but by definition a small personal business is very rarely famous. What is distinctive anyways? I have a friend that since he was a kid has owned a software company called Ibycus Software. Is a greek mythology character "distinctive" enough? Surely other people have thought to use this name, maybe not in software but still.

People that do "cyber squatting" in this manner are similar to pawn shop brokers IMHO. You couldn't pay the bills to keep the lights on, they moved in on the name, and if you want your stuff back you better pay up. If you don't like it pay your bills. Bare in mind too that the squatter does take a risk too if the name is a small enough niche then the market to sell it to is small. The one company that has an interest in the domain name has just gone out of business, not exactly a risk free investment IMHO.

Re:One way to get it back....

[Fenresulven]

I think he got the registration fee back as well as some free Microsoft software.

Re:One way to get it back....

[budgenator]

Same principle. It's in the law, but it's also common sense.That depends on how you define common sense; your's is probably very different from the legal preditor's.

Re:One way to get it back....

[Anonymous Coward]

You can bite the "tasters" by clicking on all their ads. Once its clear that the domain will cost them a fortune in yanked advertising accounts, they may let it just die.

Re:One way to get it back....

[neosake]

Actually, microsoft forgot to renew hotmail.uk in 1999!

Here is the story on the register

Enjoy!

Re:One way to get it back....

[shvytejimas]

(like taht'd ever happen) You would be surprised - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/06/microsoft_forgets_to_renew_hotmail/

Re:One way to get it back....

[Jerry Smith]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/06/microsoft_forgets_to_renew_hotmail/

Re:One way to get it back....

[Buran]

I'm saying, there's no legal wrong here. Someone paid to reserve a name that the previous registrant had allowed to time out. Was it stupid of this person to let it time out? Sure. Was it a good idea? No. But, she let it time out and someone else took it.

Had they stolen it using fraudulent means (like the sex.com story) it'd be a different story.

This idiot decided that the rules that allow names to be reissued if they aren't renewed didn't apply to her.

Hence, yes, she is an entitlement "gimme gimme" bitch.

Re:One way to get it back....

[sg3235]

It's not always about remembering. See my previous post. Just because it's spelled out in the rules, doesn't make it right. It's still extortion. Even if it's legal extortion.

Re:One way to get it back....

[Buran]

Maybe. But the fact that it's the rules means that you have to either play by them or not play at all. No one is that special.

Re:In a word, no (but if you wait a year)

[punkrokk]

They will try and extort $1-2K from you. Usually, if you wait a year, they will release it, which is what happened to me a few years ago. If you don't want to pour money into it, it's pretty hard to get it back w/out laywers IMO.

Resort to petty vandalism

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a similar problem, the farmer has an office in a nearby city. I make an effort to have a few beers and then throw a heavy object with a humorous (to me at least) note through their window. I understand that this won't help me get my name back but it makes for a good laugh.

Domain Unavailable

[topgeek]

I wonder if the John Smiths and Bob Jones of the world still look to see if their myname.com domain is available?

Re:I dont think so

[cecil_turtle]

I think it depends on the amount of traffic the URL receives. I had the same thing happen to me, but the link farm was just using one of those 7 day trials or whatever and I guess it didn't generate enough traffic to be worth it, so they canceled it and the domain was available for me to re-purchase (not from them, just to register it normally).

Registering Your Domain Through Your Host

[Badmovies]

Something I didn't see mentioned, but some seem to be wondering about, is how his hosting and registrar were the same. They probably weren't the same, but he might have chosen a host that offers to register the domain name for you at a bargain rate. If you read the fine print, the domain name is tied to their service or even owned by them and leased to you as part of the package. To keep it, you have to keep hosting with them.

What I described above is always a bad idea. Register your domain through a stable registrar and then go find a host. Saving $10/year isn't worth the pitfalls.

Re:It's called speculation, not farming

[pongo000]

Those of you who will mod me down for this know, deep in your hearts, that I'm right, but just can't get over the fact that someone else thought of the idea before you did.

Point is proven.

Cowboys

[Garry Anderson]

Similar thing happened to me with the cowboys at highimpactsites.com - they redirected my website to penpals.com whilst it was registered to me.

I got www.generalmedicalcouncil.info to help somebody who had http://www.generalmedicalcouncil.co.uk/ taken from her by Nominet - she used it to complain about the GMC.

My original site is shown on archive.org at http://web.archive.org/web/20040223073054/http://www.generalmedicalcouncil.info/

They ended up transfering ownership of it without my permission.

In the end I decided it wasn't worth the hassle fighting over the domain.

Squatting/Farming

[voxluna]

I, for one, can speak of this monstrosity as well. I had a developed domain for many years that unfortunately came up for renewal while I was hospitalized. When I got out, I called Registerfly (ha!) who gave me erroneous info which eventually caused me to lose it to BuyDomains (may they rot in hell). Those squatters initially asked only $248, for MY domain. But when I expressed interest in it, the price was suddenly $888. The rest of the story is here. They continue to send me spam to this day, telling me my domain is available.

Similar event occured to me.

[Ash-Fox]

A similar event occurred to me, except in my case. The registar messed up. I had paid all my fees etc.

This ended up killing part of the community I was running, we still haven't found everyone who used to use it.

I considered buying the domain back, but the moment I attempted to, they increased the price to 1000USD.

I have had a similar experience

[joseluis.bernier]

I had my domain stolen, I had paid for it until next June (2008) but my domain was sold to another person last september. It wasnt a problem of expiration, nor of data stoling: the register domain company does not understand what happened because the BD of the ICANN had an internal error and my domain was marked as free and then resold, nine months before its expiration date. Another person have bought MY domain and I have lost it. I have all the receipts and bills that prove my ownership, but nor ICANN nor any other organism answer to my denunciation.
I dont understand the utility of ICANN, they only gets your money but dont make any work for it, they donýt assume their mistakes, they dont take care for their customers.
In fact, a case as mine, put in evidence what is the real authority of ICANN.

Re:Buy it - Kiting

[Ricardo]

I'm not sure if you are aware that most of the spam farms use a method called "Kiting".
If you are a registrar, You can register a domain for 4 (or 5) days without paying anything. You can just reregister after 4.5 days, again without paying anything. Ad infernitum.
Domain farms are set up as their own registrars, and run software which keeps millions (and I mean many millions) of domains on the boil at once).
This means when a domain gets squatted by the big squatters, if it is getting traffic, they will never release it, and they will never pay a cent for it. I site with alot of traffic can bring in hundreds of dollars a year when it is "parked", this is why they value these domains at $1500, just to start.
There is a company in QLD Australia who use this method, and are currently the owners of 2.5% of all the .com domains registered on the internet (thats a list of names bigger than most people could read).

I got my domain back after 2 years

[Anonymous Coward]

During the DOT-CON bubble I'd registered 20+ names for ideas I had after seeing other domains I should have registered snapped up by domain speculators.

I decided to let some of them go, but let one go I used for email only by mistake. I contacted the new owner hoping to work out some sort of deal. The best I could do was get him to offer it back for $250.

Instead I opted to wait and got it back when he let it lapse.

Don't forget registerfly

[Silver Surfer 1]

I had a domain with them for years and when they took a dive there was nothing anyone could do. I had auto renew setup and was charged not once, not twice but three times and still the domain expired.
They changed name servers and anything else they could do. Millions of domains were affected and no one including ICANN could do a thing. As a matter of fact Registerfly blew smoke in eyes of ICANN during the whole ordeal.
They lock your domain and do as they please rules be damned,ICANN is toothless and powerless organization.

Re:Don't forget registerfly

[Dave Zan]

they dont take care for their customers.

We pay a fee to the registrars. In turn, the registrars pay a fee, out of their own "pockets", to ICANN.

Given that, who do you suppose are their "customers"?

that and some other issues

[alizard]

persuaded me to spend more money and move my domains to dotster. While I've actually had issues personally above the annoyance level with godaddy, better safe than sorry.

two examples I've heard of

[Anonymous Coward]

First example went to arbitration. They ruled in favor of the domain squatter. He was running a search engine so could potentially have a reasonable reason for any phrase for people to find. Strange but effectively makes them hard to beat.

Second example "the home of the underdogs" abandonware site lost their domain name but tracked down the cybersquatter and offered them a cash sum and they returned the domain. This may be effectively your only chance. If your domain is not worth much then they should logically be happy to make a modest profit greater that what the domain is worth to them. If its really a great/popular domain you may me in trouble and will just have to register something else. Sorry.

NetSol is even worse

[Evil Kerek]

These guys now show an advertising (links) page whenever you attempt a DNS move despite the fact there's no reason for there to be downtime (assuming your website was up with the previous DNS).

He didn't buy it,

[Curialis]

He just paid to have it re-registered to Microsoft so he could access his email account.

The answer is to go after them with lawyers...

[PaulGaskin]

But you can't just settle for a costly arbitration process. You must make them pay damages one way or another. If you get wrung out for a bunch of cash, or you lose a domain which is important and personal to you, you must seek revenge. Like Sweeny Todd, never forget, never forgive. Wan Fu China registered my mother's first, middle and last name. Her name is unique in the whole world, without a doubt. I call it identity theft. I'm happy to trash the reputation of any identity thief on any public message board. I've got some leads, but I need verification of the relationship between Wan Fu China and bigger companies. The way to handle this is to inflict damage on their business and make cost them an order of magnitude more than it cost you. If I have to spend thousands on an arbitration process with ICAAN'T's bureaucracy, I'd hope to cost the responsible company millions if possible. I despise identity thieves and I can't stand dealing with plodding, expensive bureaucratic processes. I'm mad as hell and I want revenge! Anyone who knows anything, please let me know so I can build my case for seeking damages against these scoundrels.

Wait a while ...

[gordguide]

Domain hijackers rely on your unique need for the domain to earn their money.

In particular with domains that have a specific value to you and you alone, if you don't need it, no-one does and there's no means to profit.

There is a mechanism whereby domains can be reserved by a registrar for a short period of time, at what amounts to no cost to them. After this short period (I don't remember how long, but think "a few weeks") they will be faced with a decision: register it for themselves for a fee or let it revert to unallocated status at no further cost to themselves.

If they believe you want the domain, they may well register it for themselves. You need to make them conclude that it will be a waste of money to snag the domain in the hope of re-selling it to you.

The key here is how they know someone wants the domain. And the answer ... a domain name availability search. Read those two lines again.

You must not search for the domain name, unless you are absolutely prepared to register it that very moment with the registrar you've chosen to do the search.

What happens is the name must be sent to various registrars to see if it's taken; the registrars who do this watch the search queries and snap up any domain that isn't actually bought by the person doing the search that moment. They know that someone wants the domain, and that person failed to register it when they had the chance.

It may well be the very registrar you use to initiate the search who does this. They then hold the domain in this limbo state for a period (whatever that time limit is; you'll have to search for it as I forget).

You need to make them think no-one wants the domain. Find out how long they can hold it without actually paying for it, and after that period do a search with some confidence it's been released and snap it up when you do find it available.

This is delicate work; if you've been checking to see if it's available, you in essence have been bidding the price up. Stop doing that and feign disinterest instead.

If your queries have convinced them to actually pay for the domain instead of letting it revert, you're screwed.

Re:In future use the trade mark rules WRONG

[theNAM666]

WRONG.

Trademarks are issued per-domain, such as Entertainment--Comedy. See USPTO.gov. A trademark issued in one domain will not protect you in another, thus, someone operating in another trade domain can use 'your' mark in domains outside yours AND have the domain name.

Also, you must show that you have business operations -- a product actually SOLD-- in a domain to be issued a mark by the USPTO.

YMMV, IANAL.

One Correction...

[IBitOBear]

you say "they were created to access a website" which is totally wrong...

They were created to "let a person find a computer" and the web is just _one_ computer application. As a side effect they are also useful for things like making sure the namespace you create in java (etc) applications is unique (barring bad actors) which improves portability of applications.

I have two domain names. Neither one has a web page backing it in any way. Nor do they accept email as there is no email server at that address.

I am always concerned when I see people and regulations requiring things like (a) the existence of postemaster@some.domain and which purport to measure the validity of the user of a domain's use of that domain solely on what happens when you type that domain into a web browser. It's a dangerous precedent.

That being said, I was thinkig of starting a web thingy (more than a page, less than a server) and there were shite-loads of clever names for it and they were all being squatted on by the same entity. Register.com had a "make an offer on this domain" (though I don't know if register.com is the squatting entity) and I tried to. The offer I wanted to make was $10 because that's about what it was worth. The _minimum_ offer the site would even let me post was $200, which I didn't do.

I think the whole mechanized "make an offer" thing is a true enabling evil. Punk-ass company wants to squat the domains, they should have to pony up real contact information and deal with the real people they are trying to extort.

Were I to set the rules?

If you are a comercial entity, and you hold more than ten domains, and you offer any of those domain for sale as a matter of course (e.g. "want to buy this domain?" on the page etc) or have previously sold off more than 10 domians, then any domain you hold that doesn't have actual content tied directly and uniquely to the domain name should be _presumed_ _invalid_ in any dispute. So you can pay for all the domains you want, but once you start selling them and reach the lowest bar to be considered a squatter, it should take little more than a letter to ICANN from me to get the domain stripped and delivered to me.

It doesn't take that much evidence to establish bad faith and I think domain names are, essentially, a public trust and once bad faith is demonstrated by a party, they should lose their rights.

Keep in mind that in this system a company can still buy up a bunch of domains to use, or to keep from misuse (e.g. bestbuy.com could buy up bestbuysucks.com and leave it fallow or point other domains like iwantacomputer.com back into the betsbuy.com hirearchy) and their interests would still be preserved. That is until they started selling off domains as domain-squat.bestbuy.com at which point they lose the presumption of good faith. So real companies doing real work to maintain their public images can do what they feel necessary, but the squatters can only waste their money.

Re:One Correction...

[IBBoard]

Okay, so maybe I was a bit sweeping on the domains. Their main purpose in many situations (and as far as squatters are concerned) is web content, though.

I've been in the same situation with a squatter. They're selling the .com of a .co.uk that I own. I'd like the .com, but I'd only shell out a year or two's registration fee equivalent (so up to about $20) to buy it off someone. They want $1000 for it (not a clue why they think it is worth so much) and the site won't accept offers of less than $60 or something. On the plus side at least it is just held rather than being crammed full of adverts as well.

I think your suggestion for rules is potentially one of the most sensible I've seen. It allows for mass purchases (e.g. companies with typos and ad campaigns) but also weakens the position of squatters. I'm sure people would still try to work ways around it, though.

I think that you mean Microsoft's passport.com

[Anonymous Coward]

One Christmas day, passport.com stopped working until a kind soul renewed the domain for them ...

back in the wild west of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a cheapo registrar notify me that I had 30 days to jump ship before they sold my domains to a holding company. I tried to transfer the domains to a new registrar the next day. They refused to allow any transfers and I lost all of my domains to a company that mirrored my old content (without allowing me any access) and put a price on the top of the page to buy it back. Quadruple cost, including on the domain I had registered a week earlier. Price went up $.05 with every hit. Needless to say, with one of the sites being a local community I was priced out of buying it back very quickly. This is why my current company's wealth of branded domains (400+) are hosted at a place that charges more... but should exist for more than 6 months.

Just buy the domain back

[joe_zepy]

I've never seen so many foolish posts on a topic in one place.

Rule #1 - Don't let a hosting company register your domain for you. Register it yourself. It takes less than $10.00 and is a simple five minute process at any domain registrar.

Rule #2 - Make sure that your email address is updated regularly at your Registrar so you are notified promptly when the domain is due to be renewed.

Rule #3 - Recognize that if you don't pay your renewal bill, your domain is going to expire and the new registrant has as much a right to it as you did when you first took it over from the last registrant (You stated that you have no trademark).

It's pretty simple yet when we are too lazy to keep track of our own domain names we blame everyone else and their brother for our problems and call them names.

There probably isn't a single person here who wouldn't "farm" domains if they understood the value of good domain names and knew how profitable the business of advertising at a good domain name could be. Domains have become valuable assets with a healthy and legal aftermarket. Get used to it. Visit http://www.dnjournal.com/ or a few other domain sites and educate yourself.

Domains Get Traffic

[joe_zepy]

Many people here are missing the point. Domains get traffic. Google profits on this traffic and sells the ads. Why would they want to stop doing that? So that people will stop calling them names? There is a huge misunderstanding here.

Domains generate very qualified and targeted Internet traffic. They channel "Interested Buyers" to potential sellers. If someone types in "Sailboats.com" in the address bar of their browser, it is highly possible that they are shopping for sailboat (they may not be, but enough of them are to make the domain very valuable). So a sailboat seller has two choices...

1.) Pay big dollars to buy the domain from the farmers and benefit from the very qualified traffic forever (or as long as they aren't stupid enough to let the name expire) OR

2.) Pay Google to place ads on the farmer's domain.

Reading through threads like this where people are complaining about "farmers" is a waste of time. Farmers aren't going to sell you their domains cheaply because "It's not fair".

Interesting Comments...

[Dave Zan]

While I understand the desire to impose certain limitations on usage, number of registrations, and what not, inevitably you're going to have issues with different and competing interests. More so those who have no obligations with any of you.

Naturally if you don't care about their interests, they won't care about yours. Trying to listen and mediate viewpoints from different parties is no fun.

I'll simply add to the OP that unless you have an existing trademark and are able to demonstrate the registrant of the domain name is infringing it, you have no enforceable claims. But...a few others I've read here offered possible out-of-the-box solutions, which might or might not work.

At the end of the day, folks, it boils down to knowing what you're getting yourselves into and what your rights are. Until you run your own registrar, however, your rights are essentially dictated by your registrar's or reseller's contract.

Believing you have a right is one thing. Being able to enforce it is another.

Whatever the OP decides, I wish him/her well on their ventures.