Network Solutions "Owns" Your Domain Name! 198
jvj24601 writes "A columnist at news.com reports that Network Solutions has recently changed its contracts -- it now 'owns' the domain name and can take it back at will. This has been held up in court. I am especially appalled that their agreement states 'NSI may terminate "domain name registration services" if the registrant uses them for "any improper purpose, as determined in our sole discretion."'"
Time to check the
DomainNameBuyersGuide again ...
domain squatters and auctions (Score:3)
So? It's called a free market. (Score:3)
Don't register with Network Solutions! (Score:4)
I recommend Register.com currently, as you aren't tied up for two years, and it is really easy to manage your domain via they're web page. Register.com doesn't seem to me to have some of the problems Network Solutions has.
Well, that would do it, then... (Score:2)
Hrrm (Score:3)
Any lawyers care to comment on what my options might be? Can I sue them, and if so, for what? This is a definate consumer-rights issue.
political ground? (Score:3)
So who owns freedom dot com?
dc
--
Why not start a new open source name registration? (Score:3)
What? (Score:1)
Wow... (Score:1)
Fran Frisina (franf@hhs.net)
http://www.zero-productions.com/money
Moving domains? (Score:1)
Sorry to state the obvious, but... (Score:3)
Though, when I think about it, maybe it's not obvious. Some people haven't gotten the idea yet.
[rs.internic.net]
Whois Server Version 1.1
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
Domain Name: SLASHDOT.ORG
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: NS1.ANDOVER.NET
Name Server: NS2.ANDOVER.NET
Updated Date: 08-feb-2000
You mean like, perpetuating a monopoly? (Score:1)
Isn't that an improper practice?
Good thing I use Dotster... (Score:1)
So what's the strategy? (Score:2)
when my NSI expires in several months, i should just be able to transfer it over to one of the more forward-thinking registrars, correct?
i think there's one in san diego with a good rep.
This is a good idea, however... (Score:3)
For instance, wouldnt it be nice if Network solutions could haul off and revoke all the stupid domain names that point to pr0n? (www.whitehouse.com springs to mind)
IF Network Solutions could be trusted to do the right, ethical and moral thing, this would also pretty much eliminate cybersquatting of the worst kind. But, as we have seen from NetSol's past reputation, they cannot be trusted to do anything resembling ethical behavior. (can you say "Sure, everyone can be a registrar, but we still own the master DB, and will enforce this when we please)
This poicy will be abused, not if, but when, and I truly feel sympathy for this little guy out there on the web who might be trying to make some money for him/herself and gets stepped on by big bad NetSol.
domains (Score:1)
microsoft.com
apple.com
intel.com
disney.com (go.com)
This is after these domains are renewed with NSI, according to the contract.
narbey
NSI is like a phone company? (Score:1)
By contrast, Phil Sbarbaro, NSI's legal counsel, offered a parallel to summarize prevailing law: "You don't own a domain name any more than you own your phone number."
Reading this really scares me, because it shows how big NSI *thinks* it's roll is on the Internet. NSI is not the provider of the Internet or even the provider of domain names; they are just an administrative body in place to manage the root name servers and take fees to manage the names in them. They didn't CREATE these domain names.
Argh, why did the government ever hand this over to private industry? =P Or at least, why weren't there more protections put in place BEFORE they handed it over?
- Isaac =)
the good old days (Score:2)
"aw, that's bullshit, that'll never stand up in court!"
. . . and we'd be right?
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
improper purposes (Score:1)
this isn't retroactive, is it? (Score:2)
it doesn't sound legal to change the contract terms once the contract has been executed? (IANAL)
--
now tell me... (Score:2)
"any improper purpose, as determined in our sole discretion."'
so now can they take back xxx.com becouse they put up child porn?
or
lets say i have weed.com and i tell you how to grow weed. and now lets say they dislike that idea. can they take that domain name back too?
or
what if Micros~1 gives them a deal on X number of copys of W2K in exchange for revoking slashdot.org
what then?
Re:Moving domains? (Score:1)
Give them a taste of their own medicine! (Score:1)
Not a .com .net .org (Score:1)
I never did trust them...
Ender
So... (Score:1)
See you there.
Joker.com (Score:3)
Fast, friendly, efficent. Gotta love it!
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Comparing different registrars (Score:3)
Censorship (Score:1)
thanks! you guys are great NSI (Score:3)
In using Tucows OpenSRS [opensrs.com] we have had extreme reliability, durability, speed, and low prices. Any ISP who hasn't implemented this service yet doesn't know what they are missing... Only $10/year per domain.
And for all you end users out there, don't miss out Domain Monger [domainmonger.com], who implement OpenSRS, and only charge $17/year.
NSI... How are you still a company?
EraseMe
this is absurd (Score:2)
Alternatively, perhaps people should start using the location based prefixes... i.e.
(by the way, is someone launching DDoS's against parts of
--
Wow, should we lubricate ourselves first? (Score:1)
NSI is like a bunch of thugs. As long as they were the only game in town, they did brisk business and just performed their function as licensed. Now that there's competition, they're throwing their weight around like a nervous drug pusher who's worried about someone else moving in on his block.
I wish there was something we could do to avoid the NSI built infrastructure, but even their competitors need to work with NSI to get domains registered and acknowledged.
Where's our famed net-anarchy when we need it?
Re:domain squatters and auctions (Score:1)
The way I see it, this is just another abuse of power from an entity that we never really wanted to trust in the first place...
-Earthman
Siggy is wrong again (Score:2)
Re:this isn't retroactive, is it? (Score:2)
I hope the change-in-contract isn't retroactive--in any case, I'll be moving to a new registrar when the time comes.
Let's take it back! (Score:2)
ttyl
Farrell
Re:domains (Score:1)
Enough already! (Score:2)
--
The Obligatory Hypocrisy Post (Score:2)
[...]
Domain Name: SLASHDOT.ORG
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Not that it means anything, but someone was going to point it out.
Just like Andover, I have a few domains registered with NSI that I'd like to transfer. Is there a good FAQ/HOWTO out there? I'm particularly interested in actual experiences and pitfalls to avoid.
Domains = Phone Numbers??? (Score:2)
Maybe next they'll argue that as the keeper of the DB they reallyown a.com, aa.com, ab.com, ac.com [...] zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.com, and you just happen to be renting a random string of alphanumerics?
Could be a good thing? (Score:1)
Comparing Registrars (Score:2)
-
Re:domains (Score:1)
It was so good of someone from /. to pay microsoft.com's registration fee before they could move elsewhere
Re:Hrrm (Score:1)
Why are we Americans so goddamn litigous?
--
Its been done, what does that do with open source? (Score:1)
Second point - Yeah, this is Slashdot, but does "open source" have to be suggested for EVERYTHING? Don't like McDonalds?! Open Source Burgers are the answer!
DNS *is* open source *now*. The only thing holding you back is the approval (of others) to set up DNS.
All you have to do is get enough people to force lookups to your servers, too..... (good luck).
But nothing stops anybody from setting up their own DNS servers, in their own hierarchy. Whether anybody ever points there for lookups, on the other hand...
Addison
I think NOT! (Score:4)
1) Domain owner of extremely popular domain name X decides to switch to a different registrar and informs NSI
2) NSI pulls the domain name X from the owner, but maintaining it within their database, since it now belongs to NSI
3) Domain owner must choose a different name when switching registrars, because NSI wants to sell domain name X to the highest bidder.
I don't doubt they're miffed by a) losing their monopoly, b) the fact that other registrars, like the owner of the
Re:Don't register with Network Solutions! (Score:1)
update: not until re-registration (Score:3)
Domain name holders who registered their names under older contracts become bound to
the new conditions automatically when they renew their names with NSI for another one-year term.
And from there on out, all NSI changes in policy are automatic and don't even require notice of the contractees.
Re:Hrrm (Score:3)
so who needs a domain name anyway? (Score:1)
introduce competition not to sell domain names, but to implement the search functionality they provide.
My prediction for what will happen next... (Score:2)
Business will drop dramatically from those who know what they are doing.
Eventually this drop in business will effect them so much that they will consider repealing this new clause to their contract.
Due to their way-too-big egos, they will not repeal it for fear of looking like idiots (too late).
To make up for lost revenue, they will start taking popular domains away for frivilous reasons. A few hell.coms auctioned off here and there and they make up quite a bit of money.
If people haven't moved away from Network Solutions yet, they will now.
Pretty soon Network Solutions won't have any domains left and will go bankrupt unless they decide to fess up and give in (fat chance).
- What do you think - sounds correct?
How do I change my domain to another company? (Score:2)
How would I go about changing my domain name which my ISP registered under NS?
Who Owns it Before it's Registered? (Score:4)
This implies (to me, at least) that NSI "owns" all unregistered names, too. If they "own" the domain then they must have owned it before, too, right? I certainly wouldn't create a name myself and then promptly give it to someone else for the privledge of being listed in a routing table. If you follow the logic then NSI also "owns" all domains registered through other registrars. At least according to them.
How exactly does this work? The only way I can see it (possibly) holding up legally is if when you agree to their terms of service you do indeed give them those rights, and I really don't think those sorts of rights are assignable.
Somebody explain this, as it makes no sense to me.
Re:Don't register with Network Solutions! (Score:1)
Someone who is a lawyer clear this up for me. I registered my name through Register.com. Register.com does not have this silly "we own your domain name" contract, however they must still go through NSI to actually regiser the domain (NSI I believe still controls the database). Does NSI still have the power to revoke my domain name?
For their own good? (Score:3)
NSI is VERY slow RE: emails about their spam (Score:3)
yet it appears that they can use their own info on their customers and send out 'the internet newsletter' (or whatever the hell they called it) at will.
when I asked them to remove me from their spam list, it took almost a month to have my name removed from their marketing distribution.
so keep it up, NSI; you'll lose subscribers faster than win98 crashes, at this rate.
--
Re:So what's the strategy? (Score:1)
I am wondering if you can do this by regular snail-mail. The reason I am asking this is I would use registered / certified mail to send the request to both NSI and the new registrar. That way you know it was received at both registrars.
At this point I do not trust NSI.
Marc
Look at their competition, though (Score:3)
As much as NSI sucks, at least they get the job done.
NSI will have some copyright problems??? (Score:2)
Here is a scenario lets say I am the rightful holder of shmuckiness.com, and have been operating that business for a number of years. Now I want to register my domain name with NSI, i do that, and now they own it. Lets say I want to switch, or something happens (NSI's fault) were I no longer have that domain. If it is not used by someone else are they not, in some ways, acting as domain squatters???? They own and hold a domain that is under my copyright. This, although farfetched, should not be legal. Domain names are equivalent to online identity, they are not just phone numbers (i would understand if you made that argument with IPs, but domain names are like last names)
Re:Moving domains? (Score:2)
Most registration companies want your business so they offer the service for free. I recently did it. I switched from NetSol to DomainDiscover for this EXACT reason. I didn't like NetSol's crappy disclaimers and legal baloney. DomainDiscover ranked high on the list of good registrars as far as legal issues. DomainDiscover did all the transfer work for me and all I had to do was extend my domain name out another year with DD. No actuall transfer fee. One year is $30 USD, which may not be as cheap as Dotster, but for the mental peace of mind its worth it.
Contract amendments (Score:2)
Something like this would not be binding under Canadian law, but I know nothing of American law.
In any event, in Canada at least, you cannot make changes to an existing contract unless both parties to the contract agree to the change. The effect is that the old contract is voided and a new contract comes into being. The impression I get is that this has not taken place so how is it possibly enforceable?
Re:Moving domains? (Score:2)
And your proof of this lies where?
(Hint: "It's just something they would do because they're evil!@#!@" isn't a valid response.)
Re:So? It's called a free market. (Score:3)
Re:Good thing I use Dotster... (Score:2)
I've also seen this site around, which lets you register domains for free, provided you have a frame at the bottom displaying their ads: http://www.namezero.com/ [namezero.com]
--
Re:NSI is like a phone company? (Score:3)
Reason I got a domain was to have stable address! (Score:3)
Re:Yeah, but how can I transfer an existing domain (Score:3)
Other registrars have similar forms.
Re:Siggy is wrong again (Score:2)
If an issue being contested is for a state law, then the state courts have initial jurisdiction - it goes through the hierarchy I just described. If, however, you are being charged with a *federal* offense, or a civil matter involving federal legislation or the constitution, then it is put into the federal court system. These are arranged in "districts", of which I believe there are 9. Districts are pretty much geographically cut up sections of the US. Above the district courts you have appellate courts, which are designed to handle the appeals from lower courts. Finally, at the very top, you have the US Supreme Court, and as I'm sure you already know, they deal with constitutional issues and federal law. They are the "last stop" in our legal system.
I may have made some minor factual errors in the above, as IANAL. I did, however, take state & local politics and get a "B", so I think I got the important details down. Now, there is one remaining detail...
Federal courts, like state courts, are on the same level relative to each other. A Minnesota court may rule that, say, the UCITA legislation passed by it's legislative arm is in violation of Minnesota's consitution. A Oregon court may take the same legislation, and allow it. Hence, depending on where you live, the legislation may or may not impact you. Federal courts are the same way - District 5 decisions do not directly impact District 6 decisions, so both decisions will stand (and yes, in conflict) until a higher court resolves the issue by setting a precident. At this point, all courts below it should adhere to that precident where it applies.
So, the issue is hardly resolved.. my original post stands.
Re:Domains = Phone Numbers??? (Score:3)
Also, one should note that the lawyer has his metaphores mixed up. The real phone numbers of the internet are the IP addresses.
Re:Hrrm (Score:3)
Bad analogy. I'm paying a phone bill for the same reason I pay my ISP, not NSI. The analogy holds up if you want a particular phone number; you pay more and get it, but you have to renew it, like vanity plates on a car. That is to say, it's not yours. Of course, the DMV is less draconian than NSI, because they can't just take your plates away "at their sole discretion."
Note that many fewer people have bought custom phone numbers, relative to the number of people with any phone numbers. This would indicate that, whatever NSI thinks, the public had the idea that what they were getting was more valuable than a custom phone number.
Whether one can consider NSI to be preying on this ignorance (since they waited for their service to get ubiquitous before seeking clarification) is an open question....
phil
Not only that but... (Score:3)
States that anyone who didn't use their real name, address, phone number, or email is subject to NSI revocking their "services." I seriously doubt that they could get away with say revoking, say, slashdot.org without due process of some sort (they may try, but
Furthermore, contrary to the article, i see nothing about this affecting you once you renew...
So when will we get an Ask Slashdot about how to switch registrars safely?
I hope that text isn't a copyrighted "trade secret."
Registrars in non WIPO nations. DON'T IGNORE ME! (Score:2)
So instead of using Network Solutions, every one registers with the other domain registrars. Who loses? Well, sure it's a hassle, but there goes Network Solutions' income. Darwinism is fun to watch.
But it's not Darwinism and natural selection. It's a very carefully and tightly controlled process of genetic manipulation. The unworthy need not attempt to join the game.
Not anyone can be a registrar unless they sign the WIPO agreement.
Wheather or not one agrees with WIPO, you must be able to smell the politics and power trips of ICANN. There's no competition or free market. ICANN is absolute dictator behind the scenes.
A GLOBAL internet ought to have GLOBAL registrars.
Differ with ICANN on idealogy and they won't let you play. Is this not wrong?
NS = The ultimate squatter? (Score:2)
Re:Not only that but... (Score:3)
Furthermore, you agree that we may suspend, cancel or transfer your domain name registration services in order to: (i) correct mistakes made by us or he registry in registering your chosen domain name,
Does that mean if they "mistakenly" allow me to rgister WindowsME.com and M$ wants it back I lose it?
Re:Don't register with Network Solutions! (Score:2)
I work for one of the major registrars - NSOL simply runs the SRS (Shared Registry System). Your domain contract is with your registrar. All the registrars sign a contract with ICANN regarding domain disputes, etc.
Matthew J Zito, CCNA
This Is Nuts (Score:2)
Hell, why doesn't the Virginia court just give NSI a license to print money?
In the recent discussion of "... for Complete Morons" trademark claims, it was pointed out that phantom marks [slashdot.org] are not granted, e.g., someone cannot possibly tie up in advance all trademarks of two words where the second word is "Services".
So exactly how much hubris does it take for NSI to claim that they own all possible domain names, present and future? I can't say that I'm surprised, but I can say that I continue to be disgusted by NSI's megalomania.
Ok, I'll sue NSI for trademark infringement then. (Score:5)
What If NSI Already Own's Our Domains? (Score:3)
They claim they own the names now, right?
So if I try to transfer registration to a more legitimate registration service, they just say "nope, you can't do that -- we own it!".
What still confuses me is how they can say they own that domain? What if another domain name service had registered the domain for you instead of NSI? There is a serious logic-gap that I'm finding difficult to even explain here. Something akin to saying a phone company saying "every time someone makes a phone call, we own the rights to the conversation that took place on it" or a copy-shop saying "if you use our photocopiers to make copies of any material, we assume ownership to that material automatically!", regardless of the real author or originator of the material you're photocopying.
I don't think that I made very much sense there. Apologies. But it's difficult to explain something that is so absurd.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Also: Domains that predate NSI spinout. (Score:3)
Funny, I thought NameZero owned mine... (Score:2)
I tended to think that NameZero owns my domain, and they would probably have agreed. It would be interesting to ask them who they believe "owns" my domain [krisjohn.net] now.
Re:Don't register with Network Solutions! (Score:2)
Absolutely. I used NSI to register a domain three years ago, and they still don't have a way for me to transfer ownership of the domain without using snail mail. Ugh. I've used Register.com [register.com] for my last three domains. The best part about Register is ease of registering other domains after you've already registered one.
Re:Also: Domains that predate NSI spinout. (Score:2)
However, we all know how much trouble NSI can cause someone who just wants to transfer a domain name.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Re:Why not start a new open source name registrati (Score:2)
There's nothing stopping anyone setting up root servers for an independent DNS system - except persuading people to use it.
Re:thanks! you guys are great NSI (Score:5)
In using Tucows OpenSRS we have had extreme reliability, durability, speed, and low prices.
Are you joking? Do you really think their terms are better than NetSol? I'd re-read your Registration Agreement. If you would look at the OpenSRS agreement, you would see that it's pretty much exactly like the NetSol's Registration Agreement. From the OpenSRS Registration Agreement [opensrs.org] (in its Appendix A):
To add further insult, read Section 4:
This is enough to make me wretch. You still think OpenSRS is cool? I feel nothing but disgust.
Similarly, Secura GmBH, which is given a 5-star rating by the DomainNameBuyersGuide [domainname...sguide.com] for its legal agreement, has the following provision [domainname...sguide.com] in its Registration Agreement:
Re:For their own good? (Score:3)
- your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
- you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
- your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
(emphasis added). That's a lot of ands. The company could, of course, take a more traditional route and seek a court order against either you or NSI. The fact that they and NSI are based in the same country might make this easier, but they'd still have to have a case against your use of the name.Bringing this all back on topic, it seems that NSI are claiming a much broader right to terminate registration services. Whilst they have a clearly defined dispute policy, it's not at all clear what they'd consider an 'improper use'. Have any domains been terminated yet under this clause? The case referred to in the story addresses the issue of whether a domain is property or a service, but from the dates seems to have arisen from an earlier registration agreement without this clause.
Re:domain squatters and auctions (Score:3)
Thus speaketh the parent comment:
Thus speaketh the news.com article:
This leasing perspective, and the court decision supporting it, are actually good, because it reflects what domain names really are: a contract where the registrar promises to maintain the name-to-IP address mapping in exchange for payment. Domain names are no more "property" than are phone numbers, or license plate numbers on cars.
This is good for trademark reasons. This is a little complicated, so switch your brain lawyerese mode. Trademarks violations involve the public exhibition of the mark, or the sale of a physical object bearing the mark, in such a way that it harms the holder's business or damages their reputation (AFIK). But registration of a domain name is just a promise to return particular DNS server addresses when queried with the name.
(This doesn't mean that public use of a domain name cannot be infringing. If you deliberately use the name to pretend to be the holder thus causing public confusion, or use it to libel the holder, you have infringed the trademark. The important point is that sticking IP addresses in a database row is not infringement.)
The domain name system has another relevant characteristic: domain names are utterly arbitrary. They are not required to match or resemble anything in the real world. As far as I know, the Internet's governing rules (the IETF RFCs) make no mention of how you should name hosts in DNS. For example, www.ford.com could point to a webserver owned by Daimler-Chrysler containing advice on crossing rivers. Or mail.mcdonalds.com could be an ftp server with J. Random Netizen's pr0n and MP3 collection. There are plenty of examples of this sort of thing, such as the notorious www.whitehouse.com.
Combine registration-as-contract with name-as-meaningless, and what do you get? Noninfringement unless the domain name is later used for traditional trademark infringement. Of course this is contrary to the hopes of the megacorporations, who have been lobbying to make the DNS root servers a branch office of the Ministry of Trademarks. It's funny how unrelated cases can sometimes establish precedents. I for one am grateful to NetSol for so nobly protecting me from corporate greed. ;-)
So my take is that squatting and auctioning are legal. And I think the benefits (megacorps can't touch your domain name) far outweigh the dangers (squatters, who can be bought off cheaper than megacorps, and who rarely litigate you into the grave).
(Of course, IANAL. Especially not in land of trademarks, strewn as it is with mines and traps for the unwary.)
<blush> The first time I posted this, I somehow managed to post this to the old "Ranking the Registrars" article. Don't know why I bother getting out of bed some days...
They only control DNS (Score:2)
There are two problems here. The first is that there is a need for translation between 'human memorable' names and IP addresses. This means that something like DNS is needed. It doesn't have to be DNS.
The second problem is managing distribution of IP addresses. v4 IP addresses are meant to be in short supply. They're not. There are 2^32 (less a few) possible addresses. The number of Internet-connected hosts is 1-2 orders of magnitude less than that. The problem isn't a lack of available v4 IP addresses; it's piss-poor management of the available ones. One solution is hard - getting people (and, more importantly, routers) to manage v4 addresses intelligently. The other solution is easy. Move to IP v6. This will happen (probably very suddenly - all the infrastructure is in place).
However, mapping 'human-readable' names to IP addresses is the issue here. DNS is inherently a hierarchical structure. It doesn't need to be. I think that a truly distributed lookup system is more desirable. The obvious example (although I disapprove of both) is Gnutella versus Napster.
My suggestion is simple: The free software community should develop a distributed name -> address resolution protocol in conjunction with IETF. Conflict resolution should be handled with existing copyright law.
These are ideas. Please respond intelligently (I have enough hot grits already)
Re:the good old days (Score:3)
Nowadays, the judges are more concerned with who's lining their pockets. The laywers are concerned about how long they can draw out the case (to get more legal fees to line their pockets), and the corporations (who have enough money to line many pockets) are stepping up to the plate and *buying* the laws they want.
It's enough to make people want to move to another country where *people* matter more than *business* -- but since most countries follow the lead of the "free" US ("free" for business -- nothing's free for the average citizen) when it comes to business-related laws, I doubt there's any place sane to move to.
Haven't they terraformed Mars yet? AARGH! I want off this rock.
Domainmonger.com (Score:3)
Trademark (Score:2)
Unfortunately I think anyone who purchases under the revisions is screwed, so go to a competitor.
Interesting that this applies only to for-profit sites... the requirements for trademark anticipate money changing hands by virtue of the accumulated good-will in the Mark. The arguments for personal sites and such might be better made under personality rights - identity control. Hmmmm.
From where does this authority derive? (Score:4)
I seem to remember Network Solutions receiving the rights to *distribute* names, not *wholesale ownership of those names*.
What's $80 a year today may become 10% of Gross Profit tommorow. "Sorry, we found somebody willing to pay more for your business's identity. Too bad you don't particularly own that identity..."
This is a land grab; a damn subtle one, but a land grab nonetheless. NSI received the right to distribute names. By claiming ownership, they're assuming a far more valuable, centralized, and corruptable position--one which they have no right to assume.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Changing registrars is EASY - I did it! (Score:4)
All a Registrar transfer is, is changing a couple fields in the SRS. That's it. Your NS are not changed during the process. The roots continue to hand out the referrals. There are in fact, only a few pieces of information in SRS: the domain name, the registrar's name, the registrar's whois server domain name, the registrar's web site URL, and the nameservers. Only the fields having to do with the registrar are changed during a transfer. The roots continue to delegate to the NS listed in the SRS, because those fields are not changed.
THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR
(though some registrars charge a new registration fee to do the transfer - small price to pay, especially if your domain is nearing renewal time anyway)
phone numbers are like IP addresses (Score:3)
in IP, personal names equate to dns host/domain names; and phone numbers are like the IP addresses. my telco or isp can change my phone/IP all they want, but I still have full control over my own name. and I control which name gets mapped to the phone/IP they assign me.
and NSI will learn this, I'm sure. this proposal of theirs just won't stand.
--
Siggy has a spelling error, again ;) (Score:2)
it's precedent [ustreas.gov]
and the issue is hardly resolved, for sure.
--
Now we're just plain fucked! (Score:2)
In this particular moment in time, i just realized what it is:
OWNERSHIP!
Perhaps the reason the internet became so cool, and so big, was because, in the beginning, a bunch of people got together and created this really cool network of computers. - No one really OWNED this network. It was just a colaboration of people, trying to do something they thought was good (for whatever reasons). (i know 500 of you want to correct me on the specifics of DARPANET...but you get the gist of it)
Now that every asshole has a computer, and every asshole at the head of every company realizes they can make money off these other assholes - Everyone wants ownership of something.
Blah blah, my domain, my ip, my this, my that! The downfall of the internet is that we're one by one, through various means, assigning specific ownership of all the various miscellany that is occurring on the internet. Something's got to give.
Perhaps either huge "megacorps" are going to spam the fuck out of everyone with banner ad us up the wazoo - and they can do it because they "own" something on the net that now allows them to do it. (case in point: how many stories of law suits or legal notifications have you been reading about just on
This "rant" has no direct link to the particular news article it is attached too. But, for the record, I believe that a domain name should be the leased property of the person it is registered to. No trademarks, no copyrights, just a leased name. when you stop paying your money...it goes back to the domain name bargain bin. - If I have an epiphany and think of some really snazzy domain name that's the next , I'll be fucking DAMNED if i shell out ~$70 and magically give it away to a registrar! NSI is never getting my business!
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
Good idea! (Score:2)
Transferring isn't easy... (Score:2)
Unless you've renewed.. (Score:2)
If you've renewed, you're screwed.
Transfering Domain Names? (Score:2)
It shouldn't be so hard to transfer away from NSI. With policies like that, no wonder they still think they can do anything they want.
Not that simple. (Score:2)
The Virginia Supreme Court ruling overturned the earlier ruling by a lesser court that considered domain names property, but only under certain legal circumstances (in this case the plaintiff was attempting to use the garnishment laws to force NSI to transfer a domain), and deriving from a 1997 dispute. Be aware that this ruling will almost certainly be appealed to Federal court.
The US laws have changed since 1997 (in particular, S.1948 was passed Nov. 19, 1999 [loc.gov]) and in 1999 ICANN promulgated a Uniform Dispute Resolution Process [icann.org] for all registrars. This UDRP change is why NSI changed its contract, NOT the court case, even if they appear to be in concert. ICANN's goal is to get registrars out of the middle of lawsuits like this, unless they act in "bad faith", for instance by ignoring a court order.
It's an open question whether the courts will continue along the path of perceiving domain names as property, or follow the lead of the Virginians and define them narrowly as the "product of a service contract". ICANN and Congress have stayed out of this question, preferring to call domain-name "owners" by the terms holder or registrant -- while unquestionably acknowledging "owner" as the term for a trademark holder. Certainly the Virginia case is not only limited to a single state supreme court's interpretation (albeit the state where NSI is based, and whose authority is acceded to in the NSI contract), but it's based on a narrow case where the registrar was being forced to take action contrary to its policies then in effect. The new legislation and the new UDRP policy may nullify any need for placing registrars in such an awkward position. Even the VA decision notes that this question is unresolved and declines to rule on it, while stating that
Bottom line? The ownership of domain names, while acknowledge implicitly by the VA supreme court and even NSI, is not fully recognized under US law at this time
Choose your registrar carefully.
----
Re:What If NSI Already Own's Our Domains? (Score:2)
What still confuses me is how they can say they own that domain? What if another domain name service had registered the domain for you instead of NSI?
Obviously, they're not saying they own names registered elsewhere.
This is a very limited ruling concerning the question of using the property garnishment laws to force a registrar to transfer ownership. For whatever reason back in 1997, NSI didn't want to set a precedent where they were subject to this kind of third-party lawsuit action. The Va. Supreme Court noted in their ruling that one the one hand the question of domain ownership had yet to be legally established (Congress and ICANN are apparently taking hands-off approaches to the question), BUT even so NSI themselves had acknowledged in both this case and the Clue Computing (www.clue.com) case that there was a degree of ownership involved.
I don't think this ruling goes far beyond this specific case, and it may not stand.
----