-Earthman
Capt`n! The spellchecker kinna take this abuse!

(I once was "Ungrounded Lightning Rod" but slashdot slashed off my " Rod". Is that why they call Linux a "Unix workalike"?)

However, we all know how much trouble NSI can cause someone who just wants to transfer a domain name.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
gothicauctions.com

Thus speaketh the parent comment:

i wonder how this will effect domain squatters who ut up chunks of names with the sole purpose of auctioning them off on ebay, holding them for "ransom", etc

Thus speaketh the news.com article:

In a decision that went largely unnoticed in the press, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled 7-2 last month that a domain name "is the product of a contract for services," and not a type of property that a Web site owns. [...] The majority opinion reversed a March 1999 circuit court ruling. The Supreme Court said the lower court erred when it concluded that "Internet domain names are a new form of intellectual property."

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...

Internet etiquette tip #14:  when Yoyodyne.com asks for your email address "to better serve you", answer MAILER-DAEMON@yoyodyne.com

Let the new registrar do it.

You don't owe NSOL a bye-your-leave or kiss-my-ass. You don't need their permission, or their cooperation to transfer registrars.

Your new registrar can then take care of the registrant name change in a jiffy.

--just roll a fatty and shut up

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?
Never click on any of my links. You have been warned.

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.

"AKU, SOKU, ZAN!" -Saitou Hajime

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?

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 for my last three domains. The best part about Register is ease of registering other domains after you've already registered one.

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)

--just roll a fatty and shut up

Other registrars have similar forms.

YOU AGREE THAT DOTSTER WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY (a) SUSPENSION OR LOSS OF THE DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION IN YOUR NAME

which later includes

(f) EVENTS BEYOND DOTSTER'S REASONABLE CONTROL; (g) THE PROCESSING OF THIS APPLICATION;

I wonder if NSI would go so far as to revoke domains from people who attempt to change registrars. It would be a hell of a way to keep clients. At least if they do, dotster will be happily protected from liability.
- end of line

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.

-o Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style. o-

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.

-o Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style. o-

-o Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style. o-

Then how can NSI claim to own them?

It's easy, try this: I own the United States!. There, I made my claim. Now, uhh.. comes the hard part - taking it over.

-o Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style. o-

--
fat lenny's gonna lick your brain today.

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

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.

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

the DNS service?
if they where selling you proprty, why would you pay a yearly fee?

you are paying them 35$ a year for them to provide NS pointers to your servers. there is no other fee, which means that you are not paying for the name itself.

greetings, eMBee.
--
Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX

Hmm. I might just waste the money and register networksolutions-sucks.org with NSI and see how long I could leave a web page up there. Would anyone else have any good (bad) anecdotes about NSI for this sort of site?

Be careful. If NS finds out you're thinking of switching, they'll revove your name, and sell it to someone they view as more 'friendly' to them.

And your proof of this lies where?

(Hint: "It's just something they would do because they're evil!@#!@" isn't a valid response.)

BE CAREFUL.

I'm looking at tranferring too.

Just make sure you understand the ramifications Ouch!

What and you think Microsoft won't buy Network TakeMySoulutions?

Your DNS is our DNS!

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/

--
Entropy isn't what it used to be.

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 now.

[I hereby grant full permission for any and all to retransmit, archive, republish and broadcast all of my postings to Slashdot, past, present and future]

Hey you're allright. Your with one of the good guys

Domain Name: KRISJOHN.NET
Registrar: MELBOURNE IT
Whois Server: whois.InternetNamesWW.com
Referral URL: www.InternetNamesWW.com
Name Server: ORANGE.IDIRECTIONS.COM
Name Server: GREEN.IDIRECTIONS.COM
Updated Date: 31-jan-2000

Good thing too.

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
Yes, that really is my last name.

Your domain will continue to operate during and after the transfer.

THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR -- DO IT

--just roll a fatty and shut up

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.
Have YOU acheived Nerd-vana?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA
okok... MUHAHAHAHAHAHA
*sigh*....

some people.

I don't know, but if you ask me, thats a pretty F***ing big IF

That aside, who is to decide what is ethical and moral? Remember that whole thing about rights to free speech? Yeah I'm US centric. blow me. (Youch... that'll get a -1 flame bait)

NSI is a US Co, and has probably assigned a US court as the legal battle ground. So my assumtion wouldn't be too far off the mark.

Anyway, I think as a registered domain owner (with those NSI bastards of course) my options have been reduced to something like getting shot in the head or beaten with a baseball bat. Great.

ME: Oh yeah I'm F***ed

NSI: You leave, we take your domain. You stay we take your domain. You want to renew, we take rights to your first born child. Any questions? Talk to the legal department.
- end of line

It was so good of someone from /. to pay microsoft.com's registration fee before they could move elsewhere

On second thought wrong domain wasn't that something related to hotmail

it doesn't sound legal to change the contract terms once the contract has been executed? (IANAL)

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

I never did trust them...

Ender

This .sig is under construction...

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 (in its Appendix A):

15. REVOCATION. You agree that we may delete your domain name or terminate your right to use other Services if the information that you provided to register or reserver your domain name or register for other Services, or subsequently to modifiy it, contains false or misleading information, or conceals or omits any information we would likely consider material to our decision to register or reserve your domain name. You agree that we may, in our sole discretion, delete or transfer your domain name at any time.

To add further insult, read Section 4:

4. MODIFICATIONS TO AGREEMENT. You agree, during the period of this Agreement,that we may: (1) revise the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and (2) change the services provided under this Agreement. Any such change or revision will be binding and effective immediately on posting of the revised Agremeent or change to the service(s) on our web site . . . . You agree to review our web site, including the Agreement, periodically to be aware of any such revisions.

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 for its legal agreement, has the following provision in its Registration Agreement:

An SLD holder's willful provision of inaccurate or unreliable information, its willful failure promptly to update information provided to Registrar, or its failure to respond for over fifteen calendar days to inquiries by Registrar concerning the accuracy of contact details associated with the SLD holder's registration can constitute a material breach of the SLD holder-registrar contract and be a basis for cancellation of the SLD registration.

Easy, it's called........money

Oh, and btw, a similar agreement is also signed with OpenSRS....;)

Join the Campaign to erase EraseMe!

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.

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?
-- tempus fugit, babe. everyone dies young

So don't do it. You don't have to change your domain if you move. See http://www.nic.us/usdom-overview.html:

There is no requirement, as far as the overall US domain administration is concerned, that the user of a "locality" US domain name actually be in or have any connection with that locality. For example, the user of Smith.Boston.MA.US could actually reside in New Hampshire.

domainnamebuyersguide.com (the "this site") has information that is many months out of date. Considering that registration has not been competitive much longer, the site is a truly pathetic example of information rot.

introduce competition not to sell domain names, but to implement the search functionality they provide.

How would I go about changing my domain name which my ISP registered under NS?

Ask them to do it (they will want a fee, most likely).

That's all.

There will be no outage.

Your domain will operate during and after the transfer, just as it did before.

NSOL isn't even involved in the transfer - they cannot stop it, they cannot protest it.

THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR -- SO DO IT

--just roll a fatty and shut up

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.

-- Remove your appendix to email me.

• 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.

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.

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.

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

I keep getting spammed from NSI. I did NOT ask for their marketing email and they claim that [paraphrasing] 'unauthorized use of the WHOIS db is prohibited'.

Email spam is your problem? Heavens, someone seems to think my boss lives at my house. Of course, the only place his name has anything to do with my address is my domain name. Hm.

Someone stop me before I fill out this credit card application.

uswest.net is my ISP right now (I get my DSL through them), and they recently spammed^H^H^H^H^H^Hent me an "newsleter" about their on-line store. The spam included directions to their web page that allowed me to opt out, but it warned me that it would take 3 weeks for the database to be updated.

My solution: I forwarded the message to abuse@uswest.net! :)

I never said I was afraid of dying.

• Microsoft claimed, on their web site, to produce highly reliable software?
• Red Hat Software claimed to be the One True Linux?
• Insert something about some site about Natalie Portman here ?

You know, this "power to terminate" might not be all bad!
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. -- Henry Spencer

As much as NSI sucks, at least they get the job done.

Someone had to put all that chaos there!

Because of my positive experience with register.com, I recently went through the somewhat involved process of transferring over to register.com the domains I had originally registered at NSI. To complete the transfer, you have to send them a notarized form. The transfer worked without a hitch.

I think it's inappropriate that a single negative experience with some *unnamed* NSI competitor should be rated a 3.

The interface is not the best but once you get past that they are great.

One thing about the issue of "cybersquatting?" How would NSI (or anyone) necessarily be able to tell if a domain someone owns, and isn't doing anything with, is actually "squatting," and not just mired in procrastination/other projects and just hasn't been able to move forward yet.

Yeah, true... a lot of squatters may have one of those "Heyyyy you can buy this domain name for X dollars, just contact us.." but a lot of other squatters may not do that. How do you separate those people from the people (like myself) who own a number of domain names (one of which will be transferred to CORE or TUCOWS in the near future, after reading that article) but haven't been able to get going on their plans yet? Can NSI decide, unilaterally, that "Well, they aren't doing anything with it... lemme just -yank- that away."

Well, maybe that is an exaggeration of what they might do.. but I wouldn't put it past them, either.

19. REVOCATION. You agree that we may terminate your contractual right to use our service(s) if the information that you are obligated to provide to register your domain name or register for other Network Solutions service(s), or that you subsequently modify, contains false or misleading information, or conceals or omits any information we would likely consider material to our decision to register your domain name or to continue to provide you domain name registration services. You agree that we may terminate our service(s), including our domain name registration services, in the event that you use such service(s) for any improper purpose, as determined in our sole discretion. 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 the registry in registering your chosen domain name, or (ii) to resolve a dispute under our dispute policy. We will not refund any fees paid by you if we terminate your services.
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 slashdot.org without due process of some sort (they may try, but /. would probably win if they sued).

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?

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?
.....And to think . . . Al Gore invented all this!

Amazing how quickly everybody jumps on this NOW. As the article says, the ruling passed a month ago, and the contract change occured last NOVEMBER. DomainNameBuyersGuide.com has a huge WARNING in the overall rating of NSI because of this very clause! This is something that's been known for months already.

I don't know exactly what NSI had/has in mind but I highly doubt that it is to pull established and reputable domain names from existing companies.

I mean really, they must know that pulling a stunt like taking away a domain from somebody like slashdot.org, microsoft, intel, etc. would land them some serious lawsuits. Not to mention, I highly doubt that they can turn around and say that in retrospect they own a previously established address. Its like charging somebody for a a crime commited before a law was passed that made it a crime (can't remember what that is called now).

Now whether new domains are actually subject to the ownerships is another thing. Bad business move though, as many have pointed out, I'd go find a new registrar. I tend to think this move is probably oriented towards squashing cyber-squatting, but unfortunately methinks nobody will use them for a registrar if they keep that ultimate power. (Yeah , I want to get my domain from NSI become a multi-million dollar company and leave myself open to having NSI do kinda a reverse cyber-squatting thing...)

19. REVOCATION. You agree that we may terminate your contractual right to use our service(s) if the information that you are obligated to provide to register your domain name or register for other Network Solutions service(s), or that you subsequently modify, contains false or misleading information, or conceals or omits any information we would likely consider material to our decision to register your domain name or to continue to provide you domain name registration services. You agree that we may terminate our service(s), including our domain name registration services, in the event that you use such service(s) for any improper purpose, as determined in our sole discretion. 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 the registry in registering your chosen domain name, or (ii) to resolve a dispute under our dispute policy. We will not refund any fees paid by you if we terminate your services.

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."

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 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.

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
gothicauctions.com

I don't think that I made very much sense there. Apologies. But it's difficult to explain something that is so absurd.

Yeah, I ran up against the same wall in another post. There's something deeply wrong with NSI's logic that they can own something you created, but damned if I can come up with a good way to explain it.

You'd think with all these programmers around here somebody could work through the logic on this (or lack thereof ;)

-- Remove your appendix to email me.

Verisign's merger with Network solutions appears to be going ahead

Veri Sign, Network Solutions merger clears hurdles on ZDNN

ironic that nsi has recently tried to force domains to be a service rather than property (thereby reducing liability and retaining control of .com namespace) - and then this week - they announced that they are going to offer aftermarket services to compete directly with afternic.com!

(see http://www.afternic .com/index.cfm?a=th&fId=21&tid=1497&rc=11008)

if nsi is claiming that as a registrant i don't own my name, pretty odd that they would offer a service for me to sell it! they are so greedy they need to have their cake and eat it too - a domain is like property when nsi needs a sexy new revenue stream to announce for its shareholders, but it is a service when nsi might be legally liable. they will probably get their way, they exert so much influence and $ over icann and the industry (not to mention political clout). no big deal, just the future of internet identity and branding at stake.:-O

use melbourne it; they have the most registrant friendly license agreement (only ones to receive 4 stars by www.domainbuyersguide.com)

You may quote me on this (everyone at work does) -

I Hate NSOL more than the entire readership of Slashdot hates Microsoft, combined. If I stood outside their offices, and hated them as much as I could, I would burn a hole in the wall.

So there. :P

--just roll a fatty and shut up

To quote from an article in linuxjournal

"Despite the fact that it is opposed by 23 U.S. attorneys general, by every consumer-rights organization that has ever examined the issue, and by hosts of legal scholars, two U.S. states (Virginia and Maryland) have already adopted the measure. (In a noted U.S. pattern called "The Race to the Bottom", you can expect other states - hoping to cash in on lobbyists' bucks and the tax revenues they'll get by attracting software firms to their states - to adopt UCITA in short order.) "

Definitely a scary trend. If I was living in the US I would seriously consider leaving.

There should also be a corresponding whitelist

If you would also like to consider environmental concerns separate from technical/other concerns add a brownlist and a greenlist. However, that's probably another website

There seems to be some very irrational fear and speculation regarding the possible revocation of domain names by Internet Domain Name Registrars, specifically Network Solutions Inc., due to the court ruling in Network Solutions, Inc. v. Record No. 991168 Opinion by Justice Cynthia D. Kinser and changes to NSI's service agreement. These fears are completely unfounded! Not only does the case in question not rule that NSI "now 'owns' [a] domain name and can take it back at will", but it helps refute that position. Also, no where in NSI's revised service agreement does it refer to NSI owning a domain name. I have illustrated my arguments below.

The Ruling
First, I'll deal with the ruling itself. Although the majority opinion by Justice M. Langhorne Keith did rule for NSI in overturning the opinion of Justice Cynthia D. Kinser, the main issue was not whether second level domains are intellectual property or not but rather if the service being provided by NSI was garnishable. In fact, Justice Keith states this explicitly when he writes "we do not believe that it is essential to the outcome of this case to decide whether the circuit court correctly characterized a domain name as a 'form of intellectual property.'"

The part that everyone is excited about and has become the focus of this case is where he writes that the rights of a second level domain (SLD) holder(whatever those rights maybe) "do not exist separate and apart from NSI's services that make the domain names operational Internet addresses." This is a very minor point in the majority's argument and is even contradicted in the opinion: both "NSI knowledged during oral argument before this Court that the right to use a domain name is a form of intangible personal property" and "as Umbro points out, domain names are being bought and sold in today's marketplace" both point to domain names having property rights. In fact, in a 1996 case against Clue Computing, NSI took the position that a domain name was property and it maintained that view in this case, as noted in the opinion.

The point that this case solved was whether the service that NSI was providing to the court debtor, domain registration, could be garnished. The Court concludes that "a domain name registration is the product of a contract for services between the registrar and registrant" and "a contract for services is not 'a liability'... and hence is not subject to garnishment." In fact, the court once again supports that domains are property, saying in support of their ruling for NSI that "we also are concerned that a decision to uphold the garnishment at issue would be opening the door to garnishment of corporate names by serving a garnishment summons on the State Corporation Commission since the Commission registers corporate names and, in doing so, does not allow the use of indistinguishable corporate names", comparing domain names to corporate names (which is a very accurate analogy, since they often are the same; right, Andover.net?). This is not a precedent setting decision on the issue of domain name rights and the opinions contained within it will be taken by any judge strictly as that: opinions (and inconsistent ones at that).

NSI's Service Agreement
Secondly, there is NSI's service agreement. NSI (and all Registrars) are first and foremost governed by their agreement with ICANN. From ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement:
"H. Rights in Data. Registrar disclaims all rights to exclusive ownership or use of the data elements listed in Sections II.E.1.a through c for all SLD registrations submitted by Registrar to, or sponsored by Registrar in, the registry database for the .com, .net, and .org TLDs."
Further evidence that the registrar is in control (also taken from the Registrar Accreditation Agreement): "An SLD registration is "sponsored" by the registrar that placed the record associated with that registration into the registry. Sponsorship of a registration may be changed at the express direction of the SLD holder or, in the event a registrar loses accreditation, in accordance with then-current ICANN-adopted policies."

Now, to look at NSI's own service agreement. Check out section 9 entitled "DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE POLICY MODIFICATIONS." In reference to changes in its Domain Name Dispute Police, it states that "you agree that, by maintaining the reservation or registration of your domain name after modifications to the dispute policy become effective, you have agreed to these modifications." Under section 15, "BREACH", it says that in the event of a breach of contract "we may delete the registration or reservation of your domain name and/or terminate the other Network Solutions' service(s) you are using without further notice." In fact, in sections 16, 17, 19, 20, and C it refers to the domain name as belonging to "you". It only refers to the domain name in possesion-inspecific phrases (e.g., "the domain name") or phrases giving "you" possession (such as "your domain name"). "Domain name registration service", as pointed out in the court case, is very different from "domain name." Section 6, allowing NSI to change the terms of the contract at any time without notice, is definitely scary, but any real changes would be subject to a court challenge. I am not sure a person can give away the right to subsequent changes in the contract without limit, and the courts have generally held this to be true (IIRC).

Summary
To summarize, the court case is irrelevant. If anything, it strengthens the position of a domain name holder, because it does (if conflictingly) acknowledge that a domain is property, but it rules that NSI only provides a service (and, by extension, does not own that property). And NSI, through its agreement with ICANN and its own service contract, does not and can not take ownership of anyone's domain names. Could they try to? Anyone can try, but they would be laughed out of court. I'm sorry, but the gross negligence and sensationalism in the reporting of this story (both the author of the article, Brian Livingston, and the poster, CmdrTaco) and subsequent reader backlash against NSI is very disappointing to me. Please read this and re-evaluate your opinions accordingly.

The news.com article states:

• 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.

NSI's contract change took place in November.

So, I guess the idea is to move my registration elsewhere (probably register.com), which I'd been planning to do all along...

t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't

-Legion

That's ludicrous! How in [gG]od'?s name can NSI claim to own someone else's intellectual property, especially intellectual property that is not yet resolved? The registration process and service, certainly. This sounds to me that NSI is claiming to own the entire domain name space including all domain names that are not yet registered.

How, then, can other registrars compete unless they license names from NSI? I guess this makes me one of N monkeys at a keyboard providing NSI with values from its perceived name space. However, it occurs to me that, perhaps, I'm not a customer/client of NSI but an employee since I'm contributing to the resolution/solution of their name space. If this is case, then I want to know what my benefits are!

My common sense tells me that this is just not constitutional.

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.

"Initially, we must point out that NSI acknowledged during oral argument before this Court that the right to use a domain name is a form of intangible personal property. That position is consistent with the one NSI took in Network Solutions, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc. .... However ... we do not believe that it is essential to the outcome of this case to decide whether the circuit court correctly characterized a domain name as a "form of intellectual property."