DNS Stressed From Financial Maneuverings 196
jcatcw writes "The Domain Name System is showing signs of being out of control. Automated software systems are being used to re-register large batches of expired domain names. In addition, speculators are using a loophole in the registration process that lets domains be tested for their potential profitability as pay-per-click advertising sites during a free five-day "tasting" period."
Re: Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
ICANN which (on paper) "measures community consensus and implements it as policy" is the entity that had to approve the policies that lets this happen.
No domain expires any more, the registrars snap them up on principle, try them out and if they get one click in the "don't have to pay yet" grace period then they keep the domain. Very very few, if any domains actually expire back into the free pool.
What strikes me as hysterical is the people that went on to become ICANN accused the alternative root people 10 years ago of wanting to do exactly this. To be honest we hadn't even thought of it. We just wants to see no centralized single-point-of-failure control over the dns.
I note with irony itoldyouso.com is taken by squatter.
I had not heard of the "testing" period. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to test the domain, then LEASE the domain name. None of this automated click-count crap for free while other people who would USE the domain name wait to see if it will ever be available.
I don't see that as the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The bigger problem is everyone currently lining up to replace ICANN is probably worse than the ICANN.
Financial maneuvering? Add political maneuvering.
Two obvious fixes (Score:5, Insightful)
If you register fo0.com on May 1 and on May 2 you realize you goof and you meant to register foo.com, fine. But your registration still expires next May 1. In addition, you only get 1 or 2 "free goofs" after which you pay a paperwork fee, maybe a few pennies or less, to cover the actual costs of changing things around.
The people who run DNS should neither gain nor lose if I register 1 name for 1 year vs. I register 100 names for short consecutive periods that add up to 1 year. Currently they lose big time.
Fix #2: Meaningful domain-lapse rules
In general, if a domain is revoked or lapses, nobody except you should be able to claim it without your permission for a certain period of time. I'd suggest a minimum of 30 days.
I theory this is the way it was supposed to work but in practice
Obviously there will be special cases, such as names transferred by court order.
Testing period (Score:5, Insightful)
Who does the testing period benefit besides spammers and squatters? Does someone who legitimately want to use a domain name "test" it for five days... and then what? Of course someone who wants to the domain is going to keep it. But if you don't want it, why did you register it, unless of course you were testing it for how many people accidentally typed your domain name, and then we come back to the spammers and squatters. I'd be interested in knowing a legitimate purpose for this five day testing period.
Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. (Score:5, Insightful)
I could see offering a trial period if a domain name cost $10,000 or something (and maybe they should), but these days you can buy domain names for pretty much nothing anyway, so a trial period is utterly pointless.
Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. (Score:3, Insightful)
stale links are the big win (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I get tired of being vain so I let the domain expire.
Someone tastes the domain and their ads get viewed by 3-4 people a day.
That's a few thousand people a year.
Pretty soon that adds up to real money.
Re:Two obvious fixes (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, you can just charge a nominal fee for some of these things. Let's face it-- a 1 year fee for most hosting isn't that much to begin with, and if you messed up and registered the wrong domain, you'd do that approximately once, and for that a $1 fee probably wouldn't cause anyone to flip out. But if you're registering tons of domains all the time, it will add up.
Am I wrong? Are there legitimate reasons to register tons of domains that might result in purchasing hundreds of mistaken domains in a year? Maybe I just don't get it
Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. (Score:2, Insightful)
This seems to be a fairly clear problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Two obvious fixes (Score:5, Insightful)
Screw that. If you register fo0.com and you meant to register foo.com, screw you, you're out whatever you spent ($10-35). That's a slightly annoying lesson if you're a regular person. But it would destroy the typosquatting market.
Re:Well maybe its *GASP* Time for Reform (Score:5, Insightful)
Is advertising a legitimate reason? Sure, any rational person can see that the typosquatter sites are really just advertising sites, and no content. However, some of them have "search engines" (that just return advertising results..) and how can you argue that those are not legitimate, while google (also a search engine, also returns some paid results/advertising) is? If you mandate that sites have to have useful content, then they'll probably just start inserting blobs of random content, or news feeds, or something else that technically complies with the requirements. Why shut them down, but not, eg, MSN or Yahoo, which are both a bunch of ads crammed around some content?
Unfortunately I don't know how you solve the problem that way. In the end, the squatters will continue, making changes to their sites whenever you change the content requirements, and in the worst case, legitimate sites will be forced to make changes in order to comply (even though a legitimate site should never have to change, since they are legitimate).
Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. (Score:2, Insightful)
If the purpose is indeed to allow people to change their minds, fix mistakes, or whatever, then this would not in any way cause them problems.
If they want to live test, they can set the IP address in their local DNS. Hell, they can do that without even registering.
Re:WTF??? (Score:2, Insightful)
--
Keep your domain ides safe from squatters. [purewhois.com]
Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. (Score:3, Insightful)
Who says DNS registrars care about promiting legitimate business or stopping ad click farms? Its pretty much their bread and butter right now. If there's a problem here, then it can be solved by regulating these registrars. Now, considering these registrars are usually ad impression squatters and domain typo resellers themselves, well, dont hold your breath expecting them to regulate themselves.
Can we make them unprofitable? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Register to trial a domain
2) Wait a few days and count the hits
3) If it didn't get the required number of hits then drop it, otherwise pony up to keep the domain.
If there is some way that I can get a feed of each of the 35 million new names each month, then i can have a script simply wget a couple of pages off each site from each of a few IP addresses.
That way they'll think they've hit paydirt, pay to keep the domain and suddenly realise that it doesn't get any hits.
I would imagine that automated counter-measures could really screw with their cost benifit analysis.
Re:WTF??? (Score:3, Insightful)
About proportionality you are talking about - well, problem is that people are people. Capitalism more or less is off-spring of Feodalism, so it simply slips back now. In my really humble opinion, people, left unchecked, will fuck up any system meant for common good. Why? Because of survival instincts. Like it or not, more money, more power is more chance for survival to most of the people. So they thrive for it. Why most people who are happy in marriage/with another significant one mostly don't care about these two things too much? Because they see their - or more concretely, survival of their species - in their family, children, etc. Yes, they need money too, but usually they have enough.
IMHO, behind all those greedy, power hungry bastards, system gamers you could see people which just have been very unlucky in their conquest of founding of their future and "survival" - happy family and children.
One big speculation, but those are my thoughts.
p.s. My biggest problem with modern world is that we keep telling "alternative truth" about it. We just close our eyes and keep saying what we want to hear. Not truth. We don't like admit that we are a little bit...savages.
Re:WTF??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well maybe its *GASP* Time for Reform (Score:1, Insightful)
Just make it cost-prohibitive to own large numbers of domains. That, plus getting rid of trial periods, and allowing existing owners grace periods after expiration, should probably cut down on a lot of this.
Re:I had not heard of the "testing" period. (Score:4, Insightful)
And no squating. If you sitting on that domain name primarily to offer it for sale then it returns to the pool. No parking. No ad/link farms. If you have address.com and you went out of business then you went out of business. Sorry.
This is why we have Flickr, and Digg, and all of those other "mispelled" domain names. All single words are used up. All three and four and most five letter acronyms are gone. Double-word combinations are getting there. Common words with i or my are few and far between.
A friend tried to get a
Re:WTF??? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem, which you obviously have missed from my previous post, is that there appears to be no relationship between the transferring and the "capability".
This of course is one of the funnier non-sequiturs. An ultimately "productive" worker is one which operates fully-automated, 100% efficient factory which employs exactly zero other employees. Furthermore, an ultimately efficient enterprise (owned by that last Capitalist who now nears 99% of ownership of everything if current trends continue) would promptly fire that last worker and replace him with more automation. Ponder that when you espouse virtues of "productivity" and "efficiency".
The point of societies is not efficiency. It is happiness of its members. There is no race to be won by being more "efficient" then the some other lifeform on Pluto. But our lives are short and filled with problems and pain in no small part because of the fact that some people managed to pervert the society to put precedence of "efficiency" ahead of well being of the majority of its members for the sake of stroking egos and enriching very few of them.
That green little man on Pluto must be getting ahead because you are concerned about how fast we "grow" our output of plastic lawn chairs from China and other worthless crap, while creating completely unsustainable energy and environmental (not to mention social and financial) nightmare so that we can outpace his "growth". Why else would you and the other nutcases be concerned with increasing the growth rate as opposed to general well being of individuals? USA is "growing" faster then Europe and yet there are 40 million medically uninsured people here to ... zero in Europe or Canada. What the fuck is the point of all this growth then?!!