Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
The Almighty Buck

NSI to require immediate payment for some 35

Posted by Hemos
from the well-not-everyone-but-most dept.
ethereal writes "CNET News.com has an article discussing NSI's recent change of heart. However, some businesses can still register names in bulk and pay later, so it sounds like this will only be effective against individual cybersquatters. " NSI has been coming under attack for allowing domain squatting, and so they are going to shift to require payment much sooner. However, some business that meet certain requirements and are reserving a bulk of domains will be able to pay later in a lump sum.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NSI to require immediate payment for some

Comments Filter:
  • That's why we have those two-letter ISO country codes. I wish people outside the US would honor them more often!

    Sure, it makes sense that a titanic global organization like Demon Internet in the UK should own corresponding three-letter domains, but when I research new domain names and see coffee shops in the Netherlands (for example) using the one(s) I want to use, it frosts me. I'm in the 01, and it doesn't make sense for me to register my domains in .nl, so why should it be kosher for the converse to happen?
  • Or something like that. Here are some appealing ideas.

    • For each domain "squatted" upon by a "squatter," said "squatter" shall be forced to "squat" on a lit candle for no less than thirty full seconds.
    • An algorithm shall be developed which endlessly dials the phone numbers of known squatters and suggests that he or she should purchase [x].com, where [x] is an arbitrarily long randomly-generated integer, until which time as the squatter files for bankruptcy or Z-space is exhausted.
    • Companies shall not register separate domain names for their stupid products ( Oldsmobile [oldsmobile.com], you know who you are !!! [alero.com]), on pain of guerilla registration of [company name]sucks.com.
  • Replying to my own message, I know...

    I swear it didn't occurr to me that I could check the account status online... Anyway, some helpful individuals did, sent me the URL and pointed out that the invoice is listed as outstanding...

    My humble apologies to Network Solutions for sullying their good name - I still feel their help service could be improved, but the information now suggests that it wasn't a random error on their part that lost us the server, but an accounts failure from KOSH.

    Once again, sorry.

    Greg
  • Personally, I think domains should be more expensive, not less; I like to think about trademark applications, which cost $250 to apply for (and is not refunded if your application is denied). I think it should all be a monopoly and cost about $1000 per .com/.net domain, that would really put an end to cybersquatting.

    Ack. That would kind of have sucked back when my local SCA group decided to register a name. Oh wait, it's a .org name. I guess exceptions get somewhat made for those (though it still cost us a pretty chunk of change, we could afford it and decided it was worth doing).

    Still, for the small business that has enough expenses, or for the local club that someone doesn't want to register as a non-profit for whatever reason but that still wants its own domain name, it sucks. :)

    It won't stop cybersquatting -- it'll merely reduce further the number and type of folks who can afford to do it.

    And what of the people who registered trenchcoatmafia.com post-Littleton to make sure that nobody did so for unscrupulous purposes? I don't think they could have afforded the $2000 it would have taken to register trenchcoatmafia.com AND thetrenchcoatmafia.com if things were done your way. :P
  • by Lando (9348) <lando2+slash&gmail,com> on Thursday July 22, 1999 @05:35AM (#1790273) Homepage Journal
    One of the things that I like about the web is the fact that I as a small, individual can actually figure out how to make the things I need the most on the net work...

    Now, I understand that cybersquating is a problem for some folks, but I think that these new policies are more likely to hurt the little guy than the big guys.

    I for one, do not use credit cards and don't reallyplan to, but now it looks like in the future I will be required to get a credit card in order to actually be able to order my domain name...

    If I mail in the cost for the domain name, by the time my check arrives the Domain Name might be sold to someone else. Further, since I generally use Money Orders it's probably going to be a pain in the a** to get my money back.

    So instead of the current situation where it takes me a few moments to register my name, and send in the check... I may end up doing a back and forth dance to establish a domain name for a period of months and that name I get is not necessarily the one I want.

    Now I understand that I am an exception to the norm, but I think this will also serve as another hurdle for people outside the US as well. 'Course maybe credit cards are universal and I am just being stupid...

    Also what the heck, raising the price? Cybersquatting is not a problem with pricing issues the money for the domain names is never received. All raising the price will do is force individuals out of the market. Gee, no more fan sites, no more individual interest sites, no more sites by those dang blasted kids. You know the ones that actually understand the web and know how to use it. Slash-dot for instance, what's with that obviously the news should be provided by NBC, CBS and CNN let's raise the costs of doing business so that these new guys are not able to get into the market....

    Sigh

    Lando



    Lando
    Making 6 figures a year, paying cash for your purchases, and not using a credit card... Makes a second class citizen on the
    net?
  • Why would anyone give NSI their credit card information over the net to them anyway?

    Have you forgotten that they were HACKED ... not once but twice.


  • Take a look at
    www.microsfot.com [microsfot.com]

    aj
  • Let's not forget about their speedy "it takes 4 to 5 days for anything to come through" automated fax system..
  • I just realized something else about requiring a credit card. I believe that most credit card companies do not issue credit cards to people under the age of 18. I work with a number of people supporting various projects and websites. On three of my sites, the entire site is run by people less than 16 years of age. I've had a number of "students" branch out on their own start setting up other sites. Now what will they do? Gee, my multi-million hit a month website came up for renewal and I lost it because I was 16 and could not get a credit card.... Lando
  • don't want a credit card but hate the hassle of not having one? get a visa debit card. perfect for:

    * credit deadbeats
    * conspiracy theorists
    * kids trying to prove they're old enough to buy porn
    * people who are too lazy to actually go to the bank
  • I like this one the best. :)

    http://www.microsoff.com/
  • means a lot less domain squatters... (or is it squattors?)


  • by rde (17364)
    To say that cybersquatting lowers the tone of the internet would imply some sort of lofty ideal for the internet; something it doesn't have (any more).
    Having said that, I for one am happy to see anything that'll help curb the practise. The fact that multiple registrations are allowed won't help, but it would be unreasonable (IMHO) to expect companies to register only one; companies that have more than one product, for example, will unquestionably need more than one. Presidental candidates are another example.
  • A much more important thing for them to sort out is that the internet is a global system and that bullyboy corporates in the USA can't claim domain names owned by others, just cos they have a US copyright on that name...

  • Apparently previously if you registered a domain you would receive an invoice within 30 days from NSI. If you didn't pay it in the first 30 days, they'd send you another one. After 60 days you'd get a shut down notice, and if you disregarded that for 30 more days you'd get a second shut down notice. If you finally hadn't paid after 120 days they'd unregister the domain. Of course, you would know the exact day it would be unregistered and could just register it again... so cybersquatters could string along as many domains as they wanted without paying. And they usually didn't.

    Now if you want to register 10 silly domains you'll have to cough up the $700 on the spot. It will be interesting to see if the sleazier cybersquatters turn to credit card fraud.

    Personally, I think domains should be more expensive, not less; I like to think about trademark applications, which cost $250 to apply for (and is not refunded if your application is denied). I think it should all be a monopoly and cost about $1000 per .com/.net domain, that would really put an end to cybersquatting.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The load on NSI's servers (WHOIS and registration servers) should be greatly reduced as a result of this move. No more overloaded www.netsol.com, no more stalled WHOIS queries. Great!
  • Network Solutions is doing a mediocre job at best. Let's get rid of them and the other registrars and have:

    SLASHDOT SOLUTIONS, INC

    Jeff could run the domain registration, and Rob could steal other people's domains that he wants. "Sorry, the domain you've had for 10 years is being repossessed for non-payment" just my .03 (inflation)
  • by harenet (53151)
    y'all STILL don't get it. do you think nsi sqeezing the low budget netrepreneur out is going to allow joe/josephine blow to get the "right" .com for his/her purposes.

    wrong, it just allows megaslothgreedmongersmongers more ability to monopolize. maybe you would just as soon see pudbillygates felonious farce lighting up most of the urls on the web. some are amiable to greed up to just such a happenstance. get real. pay attention. that doesn't cost much.

    i'm reposting my comments from previous negative article re: "domain hogs", 'cause it's important to TRY to get the WHOLE picture.

    i'm harry brown, the .com f'in idiot (Score:1)
    by harenet on Sunday July 11, @06:42AM EDT (#216)
    (User Info)
    as the "king" inferred, "selling" .coms IS a misnomer.

    obviously, .comming would be MOSTLY about developing a VARIETY of COMMERCIAL web endeavors.

    however, the reasons to do so are just as varied.

    what MOST of y'all are missing, i suspect through pre-commercial web etiquette, or something, is that you're GIVING away the
    farm.

    which is not to say that that's a bad thing, except, there's gottis out here (you didn't know) who would take the farm.

    MANY MANY of the .coms, .orgs etc... that we have, we cannot ethically, or morally, "sell", to just anybody (although we've
    certainly been tempted). and MANY of our .coms, ARE NOT available for "sale". it is a huge responsibility.

    MANY of the domains we have registered/paid for, are intended to promote/protect, things far beyond the value system of the
    currently burgeoning IPO generation. which is not to say getting money is bad.

    I have offered FREE .com space to MANY so called promoters of the EXTREMELY valid concepts of open-source, and/or the
    miracle to modern technology that linux is, only to be shunned and disdained, as some bearer of subterfuge. the 1's who have have
    expressed interest, i find to be honest, open, and insightful (as advertised). we have also been approached/punished by some who are
    interested in only the greedmonger aspects of the web. it's scary.

    i wrote to mr. malda several times regarding helping to stock a few of my open-source/linux related .coms/orgs with relevant content,
    and to promote my non-profit site, kombucha.org. he did not see fit to respond until i called him on taking MSmoney, by allowing
    MSBS banner ads on his site. that's 1 thing I will NEVER do. he NEVER addressed my efforts to volunteer, months ago, ONLY my
    dissention last week. by the by, my efforts to illuminate/increase awareness re: the crimewave that IS MSBlight, has caused my
    non-profit, good4all website, to be deleted from about 1/2 of the major search engines. not very funny to me.

    get real. pay attention. you can down a few servers, flame all you want. you NEED to promote/protect on a LARGE scale, as your
    naysayers/"leaders" do. you just need to be able to do it for less money. how many .coms do you think pudbillygates has? does it
    matter? yes!! 1 word can say A LOT. 1 of my favorites is msbs.org, not that i'll ever use it. HA HA HA.

    contact us, we want to help, we need help.
    harryjo@imcnet.net (and @300 other places)
  • Hurry what the hell are you waiting for?
    Don't you wanna rush to register your domain with NSI? I mean they're service is absolutely the greatest. Call them anytime and have them modify your domain information, don't worry it may take a month but they will get to it eventually. What me worry... Questions? Sure send them an e-mail and after waiting 2-3 weeks they'll surely fire an incorrect templated response to you, but never fear their staff is on the case.

    ^z ./sarcasm

    I can see why they would start billing out domains on the spot, but it makes no difference their service totally sucks. But hey thats my opinion.
  • by fable2112 (46114) on Thursday July 22, 1999 @04:16AM (#1790293) Homepage

    As is typical, the big businesses that can already afford to are going to be the ones snapping up lots of addresses.

    Anyone remember the www.bushsucks.com story from a while back? One of the other things a large company might do is buy up mis-spellings of rivals' domain names and redirect them there. Imagine, for instance, if Microsoft bought up things like www.linuz.com and www.netcape.com. That can leave people with interesting false perceptions, if they don't realize they've made a typo. :) I mean, I can sort of understand Microsoft buying up www.microsort.com, but what if there's a company out there called MicroSort? That could suck. A lot.

    Though I have to admit, I do still think it's pretty entertaining that the NAACP bought up www.kkk.somethingorother. (I forget which ending it had.)
  • by joe_fish (6037) on Thursday July 22, 1999 @04:42AM (#1790294) Homepage Journal
    The latest TBTF newsletter [tbtf.com] has an outstanding section on the naming wars.

    Commerce Department yanks ICANN's chain, backhands NSI

    On 9 July the Commerce Department sent a 32-page letter [1] [doc.gov] to the ICANN board and the House Commerce Committee, responding to committee chairman Tom Bliley's questions on ICANN's recent actions [2] [news.com]. Here's the NY Times's coverage [3] [nytimes.com] of this letter (free registration and cookies required). Commerce Department officials said that ICANN should

    hold all meetings in public,

    drop a proposed $1-per-domain-name fee until a permanent ICANN board can vote on it, and

    draw up binding contracts with domain-name services that would bar ICANN from going beyond their mission.

    Commerce did not let NSI entirely off the hook, either. While chastising ICANN for a threat, issued in its Berlin meeting, to cancel NSI's authority to issue domain names, the Commerce letter states baldly that unless NSI signs ICANN's operating agreement, Commerce will in fact terminate that authority. NSI must stop at once claiming the .com, .net. and .org domain-name databases as their intellectual property, Commerce insists.

    Congress has now scheduled the investigative hearing promised by Bliley. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will convene "Domain Name System Privatization: Is ICANN Out of Control?" on Thursday, July 22, 1999 at 11:00 a.m. in the Rayburn House Office Building, room 2322.

    On 16 July Commerce again extended the deadline [4] [zdnet.com] for the end of the open domain registration test. The test had already been extended once [5] [tbtf.com] because of protracted wrangling among NSI, ICANN, and the test registrars. The new target date for wider participation in competitive registration is 6 August.

    [1] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/n tiahome/domainname/blileyrsp.htm [doc.gov]
    [2] http://www.news.com/N ews/Item/Textonly/0,25,38200,00.html?pfv [news.com]
    [3] http://www.ny times.com/library/tech/99/07/biztech/articles/10ne t.html [nytimes.com]
    [4] http://www.zdnet.co m/zdnn/filters/bursts/0,3422,2295115,00.html [zdnet.com]
    [5] http://tbtf.com/archive/1999-07-08.html #s01 [tbtf.com]

    TBTF [tbtf.com] Is required reading for anyone with a clue.

  • heh, no wonder your name is foolishj, cuz you gotta be crazy if you think it should be that expensive. my friends and I are starting up a site and I'm hosting it myself, its just a hobby now, but someday we hope to turn it into a fulltime moneymaker, but if not, we'll have still had fun and learned alot. there would be no way I could do it if a domain cost $1000/ea.

    I'm not against paying upfront, however I think there should be a 30 day grace period, after that they shut it down, rather than the 120 days. and that goes for registering names in bulk or one at a time.. and if the same person registers a domain twice in a row without paying for it, they ban that person from registering that domain again. I think that would prevent people from registering domains without paying for them. that will prevent large companies from doing it also, however if they do register and pay for a domain, whatever the name, and they actually use it for something rather than just to hold the name, they should be entitled to it because it is an international medium.

    I think one thing ICANN can do is for those people/companies who register names and put a "email blah@blah.com if you'd like to buy this domain" type situations, ICANN should be allowed to shut those sites down and only allow authorized companies to be registrars/domain resellers..

    If ICANN, being an international organization, put all these rules into place, I think it would stop people from grabbing names without paying and/or buying names just to resell them to the person/company who should have them to make money.

    just my opinions :)
  • Instead of having ICANN try to find and shut down the 'if you want to buy this domain' sites (which, in my opinion, would never work), why not just place limits on domain name selling. If you register a domain name, you are forbidden to sell it for the period of one year, or something like that.
  • That was my first thought. Now I have to front money for service I'm not receiving. At least before, I had 30-60 days to argue with them before I had to pay.

    If they go to this policy, and you have to pay up front for your clients domain registrations, whats the turn around going to be?

    Current system, email in application, it goes in at 5pm tonight, normally its disbursed within 24-48 hours, and a new customer site is ready.

    Now we have to mail-in, or call in (oh, this ought to be good, now 3 hours on hold to get new domain?) the payment, wait for processing, then hae a customers site active?
  • might help you understand why things developed the way they did.

    In 1994, when I got my amazing.com domain name, there were a lot of restrictions placed on names by the contract between Network Solutions and the government. At least in theory, every name was sort of like a grant proposal, and you had to justify the reason for your request. So Network solutions had the perfect right to turn down your request after a formal approval procedure.

    Some vestiges of this system existed when the fees were introduced for domain names. Since NSI had a theoretical duty to say Yes or No to your request, it was natural to not charge for names (and thus not enter into a binding commitment to provide one) until they had manually reviewed your application. For example, the .net and .org domain names were intended only for ISPs and non-commercial organizations. So in theory, if a commercial entity tried to get a .org domain name, NSI was supposed to bounce back the application.

    Now, of course, anyone can register any name they like, as long as it's not yet in use. So the old idea of an "application" and limiting use of the old net and org domain names is considered obsolete. Thus, the logic of now charging for domain names up front; there's no reason to deny your application; there's no reason to even look at it.

    To tell the truth, I'm surprised it took them this long to make the change.

    However, in a nutshell, as long as you eventually intended to get a domain name, this change won't affect you much. You had to pay for it before, you still have to pay for it now. Only the mode is different.

    Incidentally, at least here in California, debit cards are supplied free as part of your checking account. So if you have any kind of checking account, you have something fully capable of paying a NSI bill.

    D

    ----
  • What has ever prevented big business for wrangling what they want? Is money an issue to Microsoft? Look what AOL does domains it doesn't like or wants for itself. This is good for stomping the smaller squatters, but I'm willing to bet that a back door can be purchased if the price is right. All Hail the Almighty dollar.
  • I got a small chuckle out of this:

    The zone files, which make the Internet work, are updated daily, 7 days a week.

    Now when all the stefs complain about the internet "not working" I can say, "oh, it must be NSI's zone files again" hee hee
  • It's nice to see that they're getting better, but they're far from perfect.

    I've been helping with the KOSH website for some time now, and http://www.kosh.net [kosh.net] was our nice, easy to remember server, handling the site and rather a large volume of e-mail lists. 'Bout a month ago now, it dropped off the DNS servers. No explanation, as the sysadmin swears they're paid up, and they still show us as registered. To make it worse, they refuse to offer any explanation or assistance! Quite what's happened we don't know, but it's causing us major hassles and it's doing a good job of killing the project.

    Anyway, that's my rant...

    Greg

Blinding speed can compensate for a lot of deficiencies. -- David Nichols

Working...