Slashdot Mirror


Domain Tasting "Officially Dead" Thanks To Cancellation Policy

Ars Technica is reporting that domain tasting has been all but eradicated now that the full penalty for excessive cancellations has taken effect. "In 2008, ICANN decided to act. It allowed domain registrars to withdraw as many as 10 percent of their total registrations; they would face penalties for anything above that. Initially, ICANN adopted a budget that included a charge of $0.20 for each withdrawal above the limit, which was in effect from June 2008 to July of this year. Later, it adopted an official policy that raised the penalty to $6.75, the cost of a .org registration; that took effect in July 2009. The results have been dramatic. Even under the low-cost budget provisions, domain withdrawals during the grace period dropped to 16 percent of what they had been prior to its adoption. Once the heavy penalties took hold, the withdrawal rate dropped to under half a percent."

36 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the semi-legitimate use you can dig up is that companies want to buy up bundles of DNs and drop ads there to see if type-in traffic or google searches can make them enough bank to warrant keeping it up. Personally, sounds like a get rich quick scheme providing nothing -- maybe even negative confusion -- to society and should therefore be discouraged.

    Next you got domain kiting. Where a jerk "tastes" under one registrar and then cancels five days later and "tastes" under another an then cancels five days later and then "tastes" under yet another registrar ... do we see where this is going? Again, free DN registration, stupid that this should even have a term even stupider that it works for people with a lot of patience aiming to save $12/year.

    And what's left? Domain Name Front Running like our friend Network Solutions? Remind me again what sound logic caused domain name tasting to be introduced in the first place?

    Lastly, after reading the short report, I'm lead to believe that we're still allowing 10% AGP deletes. My question is simple: Given the above reasons for domain tasting, why allow it at all? I mean everyone's spinning this move in a positive light except for scam artists and con men. So why not just seal the deal and make it "Officially Officially Dead" in a policy?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting by Ex-Linux-Fanboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the thinking is that it allows people to get refunds if they made a typo during the domain registration process.

    2. Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's easy - you can have a refund on any domain as long as you request it within n days and you don't set up valid DNS records for that domain during that period. If you set up working DNS entries then you're using the domain so you should be charged for it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting by nametaken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Setting up DNS records" is (in some ways) vague and is relatively hard to enforce.

      What they have now apparently accomplishes its goal. Best I can tell there's no problem left to be solved.

    4. Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting by xaxa · · Score: 5, Informative

      Say Google [...] pagerank=0 OTHER, real websites that had the same ad providers these scammers use.

      You seem to be assuming Google "do no evil"; I'm afraid you're a few years out of date:

      http://www.google.com/domainpark/

    5. Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting by natehoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then you accept you've made a mistake, pay your $5-15, and move on. Stop buying lattes at StarDucks for a week and pocket the difference.

      The instant a "money back" UNDO button goes into place, someone will just go back to tasting again. A well-intentioned system to allow people to avoid the consequences of their mistakes has allowed significant abuses of the system for the rest of us.

      And by "rest of us", I will freely admit that I have acquired a couple of incorrect domain names in the past. Recently I got one for an informal camping/hiking/kayaking group I'm in, and one of the members said she didn't like the domain name I chose a couple of days later. So I just got a new domain name. My registrar charges $6 for the first year and $8 a year afterward, so it literally wasn't worth the time and effort of getting my money back for the mistake. I'll just let the domain lapse next year if I haven't found a use for it.

      I think a lot of the need for an undo comes about simply because it exists. If people knew that a domain order was irrevocable, they'd probably spend an extra 5 seconds closely examining their domain name before hitting YES.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    6. Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting by coryking · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but for every registrar I've ever used the DNS records are set up the second you purchase the domain.

  2. What was the point anyway?? by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What was the purpose of "domain testing" anyway??

    1. Re:What was the point anyway?? by linhares · · Score: 5, Informative

      What was the purpose of "domain testing" anyway??

      Money, young grasshopper. Money. From TFA:

      Never ones to let a good deed go unpunished, scammers quickly learned to take advantage of a user-friendly policy that allowed a misregistered domain name--perhaps due to a typo--to be withdrawn at no cost. Scammers used this "Add Grace Period" to grab huge numbers of domains, throw up pages full of advertising, then withdraw the applications before the bill came due. It was a practice known as "domain tasting," and it gave the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) a bad case of indigestion.

    2. Re:What was the point anyway?? by drougie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Registering a bunch of domains to see if any are already getting enough traffic to generate enough revenue to make hanging onto the domain worth it or canceling it before the bill comes. Aggressive typo-cybersquatting, a lot of it. Here.

    3. Re:What was the point anyway?? by v1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      What was the purpose of "domain testing" anyway??

      The cited reason, though dubious, was to for example, register your business under a dozen variations of domain names, wait a few weeks or a month, let things hit the search engines etc, and see which one or two get you the most traffic, register those few, and cancel the rest.

      The reality of course, due to low and nonexistent abuse provisions, was that the domain squatters moved in en masse and tasted a few hundred thousand domains a month each, on a rotating basis, causing every reasonable unregistered domain name to be perpetually under taste by a squatter, that would be more than happy to sell you the domain for a few hundred or few thousand dollars.

      I see this as a good thing for several reasons. Firstly, domain squatters need to die anyway and another nail in their coffin is fine by me. Secondly, I am tired of mistyping a url or poking around with probables looking for something, only to land on "what I need, when I need it." That about makes me want to vomit at this point. Before this enforcement, practically ANY domain name you could enter in was either taken and had content possibly in your interest, (10%) or was under taste. (90%) Now we can start seeing our browser's domain-not-found page once in awhile again.

      But then again now we will experience the return of those "helpful DNS redirections" from microsoft and your local ISP.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    4. Re:What was the point anyway?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I find it hard to believe that any legitimate business couldn't afford to register even a hundred variations on domain names, and pay the full year in an attempt to test whether they get hits.

    5. Re:What was the point anyway?? by theskipper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To be clear, a large portion of tasting involved picking up bulk names from the pending delete list. Money was made from domains that might have residual traffic after the delete. Park the domain for a few days then see if the adsense/affiliate revenue outweighed the annual fee. If not, drop it and get the refund.

      So typos would be a subset; not every tasted domain would be a typo.

    6. Re:What was the point anyway?? by nametaken · · Score: 3, Informative

      Helps with typo-squatting, etc. Keep the domains with high returns and ditch the others. Don't even have to pay for the ones that don't pan out.

  3. Oh how true ... by neonprimetime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the unfortunate aspects of networked computing is that the cost of antisocial behaviors is so small

    1. Re:Oh how true ... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

      If only all those people working on a way to deliver a punch to the face over TCP/IP could get their act together...

    2. Re:Oh how true ... by NotWithABang · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've been working on this protocol for a long time and, just to update you, we have it working via UDP but discovered it to be essentialy useless since, as we all know, UDP is connectionless and a punch to the face is a complete waste when no connection is made.

      The difficulties in implementing the protocol over TCP seem to be in the fact that the receiver of the "Punch-To-The-Face" packets (PTTFs) must first ACKnowledge the connection attempt before it will be received and, in most cases, they simply refuse the connection.

      We're currently researching spoofing methods that may disguise the PTTFs until after the connection is made. However, current attempts to make a Punch To The Face look like a Hug From A Friend or Sex With A Girl have been unsuccessful.

      --

      ... I must be new here.
    3. Re:Oh how true ... by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 4, Funny

      One of the unfortunate aspects of networked computing is that the cost of antisocial behaviors is so small

      I disagree, you JACKASS!

    4. Re:Oh how true ... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      However, current attempts to make a Punch To The Face look like a Hug From A Friend or Sex With A Girl have been unsuccessful.

      It's not like anyone here would know how to ACK those connection attempts anyway.

  4. So you're saying it's mostly dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. I say we take off and nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

    1. Re:So you're saying it's mostly dead? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Funny

      If it's all dead, the only thing left to do is sort through it's pockets for loose change.

  5. Sudden? Not quite. by sootman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We need a new tag: "eventualoutbreakofcommonsense"

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Sudden? Not quite. by jeffshoaf · · Score: 3, Funny

      We need a new tag: "eventualoutbreakofcommonsense"

      Unfortunately, those happen far too seldomly to warrant a tag.

      --
      Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
    2. Re:Sudden? Not quite. by MarbleMunkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My personal favorite is a modification of one of your examples:

      "Why put of until tomorrow what you can put off indefinitely"

  6. It's 'tasting,' not 'testing' by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

    What was the purpose of "domain testing" anyway??

    Obviously, some domains have gone bad, like milk left out too long. You don't want to drink the whole thing, so, um, you taste a little bit of it? To see if it's gone sour? Maybe we could replace it with domain smelling, or domain giving it to your wife to see if she spits it out?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:It's 'tasting,' not 'testing' by twidarkling · · Score: 4, Funny

      domain giving it to your wife to see if she spits it out?

      Last time I tried that in the bedroom she threatened to kill me.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    2. Re:It's 'tasting,' not 'testing' by spun · · Score: 3, Funny

      domain giving it to your wife to see if she spits it out?

      Last time I tried that in the bedroom she threatened to kill me.

      I say that we, the males of the species, start a class action suit against the fairer sex for false advertising. Or bait and switch, I'm not sure. All I know is, after we marry them, there's this whole list of stuff they won't do anymore, and if we try to get it in writing beforehand, we get slapped.

      "So, if we were to get married, how many blowjobs per week, on average, could I expect to receive?"

      "Depends. How flexible are you?"

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:It's 'tasting,' not 'testing' by binaryseraph · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you must have been trying to use the wrong port.

  7. Doesn't matter anyway by digid · · Score: 2, Informative

    because your ISP is tasting all the domains you visit through their DNS. Can they not sell a list of the most popular misspelled domain names? I was alarmed the other day when I mistyped a nonexistant domain and comcast's domain helper came up.

    http://www.comcastvoices.com/2009/07/domain-helper-service-here-to-help-you.html

    1. Re:Doesn't matter anyway by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What did I drink this morning if it wasn't coffee?

      I'm not sure but Starbucks made a business out of selling it.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  8. Next, get registrars out of domain speculation by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The next step is to enforce ICANN rule 4.2.5 to prohibit registrars from warehousing or speculating in domains.

  9. Not a Valid Use, Submit a Change Request by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the thinking is that it allows people to get refunds if they made a typo during the domain registration process.

    So what you're telling me is that the process for making an error in your form is to delete everything and start over? You're telling me that they do this instead of having you submit a request to have it changed? Am I the only one that thinks it would be easier to make a form for requesting changes to your account?

    People are human, people err. But it benefits everyone involved if you just fix the mistake when you notice it. The registrar retains your business and you get the domain you wanted. No big deal. But it stops scammers from allocating 300 domains and keeping 3 of them to squat on or whatever they want to do. They should be stuck with 300 domains they have to pay for.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  10. Re:Heavy Penalties by ArcadeNut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, now multiply that by the 10,000 domains that some SPAMMER registers, then decides to cancel when they don't pan out...

    --
    Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
  11. Re:Heavy Penalties by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not like scammers work with a single domain. $6.75 * 1,000 or 10,000 is certainly going to discourage some people from being a douchebag. These are people who make tiny amounts of money from a ton of places, $6.75 is enough to destroy each small revenue stream for them.

    It's sort of like when you take a penny from the tray at 7-11, except it's a much larger tray, and they take several million times.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  12. Who knows how to get their money back. by lalena · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Besides the domain tasters, does anyone actually know how to get their money back for a domain? I've used several registrars, and I've never seen a link or a mention in a FAQ that I could get my money back if I make a typo. I'm sure it's in there, but just buried under mountains of fine print. For $10, it's my guess that most people figure it was their mistake and pay again. Only the shady people know about the policy.

    1. Re:Who knows how to get their money back. by GravityStar · · Score: 3, Informative

      No you can't. All sales are final.

      The shady people were the registrar's /themselves/.