Slashdot Log In
Network Solutions "Owns" Your Domain Name!
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Fri May 12, 2000 04:41 PM
from the you-gotta-be-kidding-me dept.
from the you-gotta-be-kidding-me dept.
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 ...
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Network Solutions "owns" your domain name!
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 198 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
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.
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)
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
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.
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)
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
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
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)
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.
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.
--
Look at their competition, though (Score:3)
As much as NSI sucks, at least they get the job done.
Re:So? It's called a free market. (Score:3)
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: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."
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?
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)
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...
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)
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.
--