NetSol To Do Domain Name Auctions 240
Here's an "official" email I've gotten.
****************************************
Domain Name: XXXXX.COM
****************************************
Creation Date: 03/28/2000
****************************************
June 22, 2000
Kohn Doe
XXXXXXXX@cfl.rr.com
Important Message Regarding a Modification to
Your Domain Name Registration Service Agreement
------------------------------------------------
Dear Customer,
Network Solutions' records indicate that you
are the Administrative Contact for the domain name
listed above, but we have not yet received payment for
our services, as your agreement with us requires. We
have already sent two notices to the registrant's
billing contact and have deactivated, but not deleted,
your registration. We are now modifying your agreement
to provide you with three options to satisfy your
payment obligation and avoid collection agency action.
The options are:
1. PAY: Pay in full by June 28, 2000 at: http://payment.networksolutions.com/go/tind/payments/ Upon payment in full, the registrant will enjoy the balance of their term of service and full rights to their domain name under the agreement. PLEASE DO NOT SEND A CHECK. Payment must be made online.
2. DELETE: reply to this email by June 28, 2000, instructing us to delete your Name immediately and we will do so. You will still be liable for payment in full and may be subject to collection agency action.
3. AUCTION: if you do not PAY or DELETE as above by June 28, 2000, we will enter the domain name in Network Solutions' new auction site in an attempt to satisfy the registrant's payment obligation. Any and all proceeds that we receive from the transfer of your domain name registration (up to the full registration fee) will be retained by Network Solutions and your domain name will be transferred to the successful bidder. By selecting this option, you hereby authorize us to act as your contact to perform all necessary actions relating to the auction and transfer of your domain name registration.
If this domain name account lists your hosting provider as the billing contact, please contact them directly. For others, please call our customer service at 1-800-779-1710 from the United States and Canada. Outside of these areas, call (703) 742-4777 Monday - Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. We hope this modification to your agreement is helpful to you.
Regards,
Network Solutions(R)
A VeriSign(R) Company
Company Profile (Score:1)
John S. Rhodes
WebWord.com [webword.com] -- Industrial Strength Usability
Maybe if you weren't a deadbeat... (Score:1)
...you wouldn't be getting threating letters from NSI. Do you complain about the electrical company when it disconnects you for not paying your bills? NSI is far from perfect, but they're entirely within their rights on this one - you agreed to pay them for services, you didn't pay them, and now they're turning off the service.
The only thing that makes this more interesting than a normal utility is that the service is distinctive - if you had bobsdomain.com and NSI transfers it, you can't just start paying the bill again to get service back. You'll never be able to get that service again, unless the new owner doesn't want it anymore.
I got this one (Business Account version) (Score:2)
From: Business Account <BusinessA@netsol.com>
Subject: Please Read: Important Announcement from NSI to Business Account Members
> Dear Premier/Business Account Program Members:
>
> Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) is implementing a new practice that could
> eliminate, or at least reduce, your obligation to pay us for your
> customers that have failed to pay for our domain name registration
> services. As you are aware, pursuant to the terms of your
> Premier/Business Account Agreement with us, you are liable to us for
> delinquency fees for the unpaid registrations of customers that you refer
> to us. Effective immediately, we are providing your domain name
> registration customers with an opportunity to satisfy their payment
> obligation to us by placing their delinquent registration in our new
> auction site. If such actions result in a transfer to a new registrant
> through the auction site, the proceeds we receive from the transfer (up to
> the full amount of the registration fee) will be retained by us to satisfy
> your customer's registration fee. In such event, you will no longer have
> the obligation to pay the delinquent registration fee.
>
> We believe this to be a sound and reasonable course of action for
> customers who register domain names, but refuse to pay for services
> rendered. We also believe that these actions will alleviate the payment
> burden from our partners. Generally, we have learned that if we have not
> been paid, it is likely that our partners have not either.
>
> So that you clearly understand the process leading up to this action we
> offer the following information:
>
> * We have sent the registrant three prior billing notices:
> 1. Original invoice
> 2. Late notice
> 3. Notice of deactivation
>
> The customer has still not paid for our domain name
> registration services.
>
> * On Thursday, June 22, the administrative contact for such
> registrants will receive an e-mail from NSI requesting payment for such
> domain name(s). This means that if a registrant has registered multiple
> domain names and has not paid for them, he/she will receive a separate
> e-mail for each unpaid name.
>
> * The administrative contact will be given three options.
> 1. Pay the registration fee electronically by June 28, 2000.
> 2. Instruct NSI to delete the name by June 28, 2000.
> 3. If the domain name is not paid for or is deleted by June 28,
> 2000, it will be entered on the NSI auction site. Any proceeds from the
> sale of the name (up to the full amount of the registration fee) will be
> retained by NSI and the domain name will be transferred to the successful
> bidder.
>
> There will be no exceptions or exemptions from this e-mail as it is
> extremely important that these registrants be given one final chance to
> pay.
>
> We thank you for your cooperation. Please direct any questions to your
> Partner Relations or Business Support team.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Thomas E. van Gorder
> Vice President, Sales and Business Development
>
Theft or delinquency? (Score:1)
Rather than simple theft, it looks more like cleaning up of delinquent accounts.
How much for www.networksolutions.org? (Score:1)
Registrant: Network Solutions, Inc. (NETWORKSOLUTIONS4-DOM) 505 Huntmar Park Drive Herndon, VA 20170 Domain Name: networksolutions.org Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Network Solutions, Inc. (NSOL-NOC) noc@NETSOL.COM Network Solutions, Inc. 505 Huntmar Park Drive Herndon, VA 20170 US 703-742-4777 Billing Contact: idNames, Accounting (IA90-ORG) accounting@IDNAMES.COM idNames from Network Solutions, Inc 440 Benmar Suite #3325 Houston, TX 77060 US 703-742-4777 Fax 281-447-1160 Record last updated on 20-May-2000. Record expires on 13-Dec-2000. Record created on 12-Dec-1997. Database last updated on 22-Jun-2000 16:41:25 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS1.NETSOL.COM 216.168.224.200 NS2.NETSOL.COM 198.17.208.83 NS3.NETSOL.COM 216.168.224.201
Re:How much for www.networksolutions.org? (Score:1)
AHAH! I understand it now. (Score:1)
Now, why would NSI not want to do this? The reason is that if they let it lapse then they give up control over the registration of that domain. In other words, under the old system, if someone didn't pay their NSI bills, then when the domain lapsed, someone else (or the same person) could easily pick up the domain and register it at another registrar, such as register.com etc. By auctioning off the domains they retain total control over them and thus simultaneously snag potential business away from their competitors and gain a little extra cash (and publicity) in the process.
It's quite devious really, just the kind of thing I'd expect from NSI / VeriSign.
Re:Network Solutions is a bad thing (TM) (Score:1)
---
Isn't it supposed to go back into the pool? (Score:1)
Last year, negotiations broke down between me and a squatter over the transfer of a domain name I wanted. Rather than entertain his ransom, I decided to wait and see. I watched as the record expiration date passed and kept checking to pounce on its return to availability. After two months, I contacted Network Solutions, the registrar, and the reply I received was that registrants were given 30 days to renew or the domain name would be made available for sale. Well, that was nearly 90 days ago and the domain name still rests in expired but unavailable status. Now, am I to believe that "return to availability" means that it will be auctioned? Does NetworkSolutions somehow hold rights to a domain name in perpetuity simply because someone used them to register in the first place? If so...what a crock.
Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:3)
On a side note: I fail to see how auctioning off a domain name will hurt anyone but individuals or small businesses. Do you actually think if some Big Company with a recognizable name would let their registration expire, and their domain was auctioned off, that whoever bought it would be allowed to keep it? No, said Big Company would simply sue the pants off of the buyer for "copyright infringement" or something.
Every time I see a story like this, I see a little bit more of the Internet slowly swallowed up by the machine that is Corporate America(World). PETA get's back peta.org. Coca-Cola shuts down some fan-site. Fox goes headhunting Simpson fan sites. I know that some of this is inevitable with the growth of the internet, but it's still disappointing to see coroporations take over another thing in this world.
Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!
By what right do they auction off the domain name? (Score:2)
Network Solutions, in its capacity as a government contractor, has already been through a carefully negotiated and litigated process to determine that they couldn't charge as much as $100 per two years, reducing the price to $75.00.
Further, Network Solutions is no longer the "owner" of
Auctioning off domain names is something for the non-contractors to do -- NSI cannot do both without a conflict of interest, and certainly the appearance of impropriety. IMHO, they should either stop the practice immediately, or be stripped of their right to issue SLDN in
Re:Auctioning ownership? (Score:3)
Does that mean, according to the most recent legal arguments about intellectual property, that NSI is in violation of IP law for owning someone else's trademarks?
Not per se. At this time the "property" status of domain names is still unclear. While there was a string of decisions through 1999 that supported the domain-holder-owns-it theory, two decisions this spring instead supported the domain-as-product-of-contract theory. In other words, it only exists as a product of a valid contract between you and the domain registrar.
Could a company like Microsoft sue NSI for trademark infringement and demand ownership of the name microsoft.com, which would necessitate direct access to the root nameservers?
Under current ICANN policy, and recent court decisions, registrars are pretty much wholly indemnified, unless they themselves do something intentional against a domain-holder. Essentially, this is to get registrars (NSI, joker.com, anybody) out of the middle of lawsuits between trademark/domain disputants, but it also has the effect of holding them essentially blameless in cybersquatting or domain-hijacking cases (cf. recent decision in sex.com case).
----
Couldn't this be Cybersquatting? (Score:1)
Dyslexics of the world UNTIE!! {doing my part to promote creative spelling}
Re:Maybe if you weren't a deadbeat... (Score:1)
OK, mea culpa. I guess I should have been more surprised to see NSI come down on the right side of an issue for a change.
In your place I'd be pissed off too.
Re:By what right do they auction off the domain na (Score:2)
What you *should* do is... (Score:1)
What this message doesn't say (Score:1)
NSI is acting with ever-increasing arrogance (remember their new provision in their agreement that says, effectively, that they own your domain and can take it back at any time?). It's time to get a legislative rein put on these banditos.
Re:Who gave Network Solutions the right to more $? (Score:1)
What they should do (Score:2)
Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:2)
They're not stupid.
No, not stupid at all: greedy is the more accurate description.
So they'll auction them off, because, hey, that way, they can make a hundred times... nay, ten thousand times!... more money.
You know, it's time we took the Internet back. Greedy bastards are making it next to impossible and damned unaffordable to have reasonable/meaningful domain names.
--
Re:Maybe we'd pay if... (Score:2)
This was the #1 reason I just ditched NSI.
Doesn't NSI have better things to fix first? (Score:1)
Re:troll (Score:1)
NetSol's poor billing practices (Score:1)
Also, what about the case where a disgruntled employee who was fired or quit is still the billing contact? Sure, the company should have changed it, but with companies with many domains, it may get overlooked. Sure, I'll probably get flamed saying that is the company's responsibility, but I think there should be some checks and balances in the process.
Re:troll (Score:1)
Slashdot requires you to wait 1 minute between each submission of /comments.pl in order to allow everyone to have a fair chance to post.
It's been 1 minute since your last submission!
Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:2)
Why stop at non-payment. If I decide to cancel my name, why won't they (or do they already) schedule and auction in order to keep the name 'in the family' if you will.
and what will ICANN say? (Score:1)
that question is especially important because arbiters under ICANN's UDRP have tended to regard reselling an SLD as a sign of "bad faith" -- punishment for which is the loss of the SLD. but here we have NSI, a registrar/registry, auctioning off SLDs itself!
i can't wait to see what ICANN has to say about this dubious maneuver. of course, if ICANN and "competence" could fit in the same sentence, this possibility would have been solved when the UDRP was first imposed by its yet-to-be-elected board. but they can't fit in the same sentence, and the problem remains. oops, NSI just solved it.
and roger cochetti, the former IBM washington cheese largely responsible for installing dyson at ICANN, now works for NSI -- so i imagine what with the rather large favor she owes him, she might not have much to say all. what a pity.
scoundrels and incompetents, the lot of them. i do hope slashdotters wake up en masse to what a scam ICANN is.
RE: I bid... (Score:2)
Re:Seems to be a standard practice... (Score:1)
--
Re:Bring out the sharks... (Score:1)
LetterJ
Re: (Score:2)
Why auction? (Score:1)
Here is what I got from NSI today! (Score:1)
Dear Customer:
Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") has received a request to transfer your domain name from NSI to another Registrar. This is to notify you that the transfer request has been approved by NSI and was sent to the Registry for processing.
Please contact REGISTRAR@NETSOL.COM if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Registrar Change Group
Network Solutions, Inc.
Good bye NSI, hello JumpDomain [jumpdomain.com] and OpenSRS!
Re:"consulting domain holders" (Score:1)
Think of it like this (Score:1)
Really interesting outcome. (Score:1)
law school as life [f2s.com]
Re:Um, I think I'll save my pennies (Score:1)
There's a difference between harming the company and harming the trademark. Harming the trademark would be providing goods or services that trade on the good name of the trademark holder but aren't provided by the trademark holder. PETA.org wasn't doing this. They might have been trying to harm PETA the organization by hosting a parody/anti-PETA site, but they weren't misappropriating PETA's trademark to do so. That is, no reasonable person could believe that PETA.org was really operated by the ethical PETA. Use of a trademark in a parody is fair use, remember?
Am I missing something. (Score:1)
My question is: Is there a minimum bid price? Otherwise instead of paying the $35 a year, I let my domain expire, then bid my $0.02 for a domain name that no one wants and end up paying $0.02 a year compared to $35.
Comments? Mods?
Um, I think I'll save my pennies (Score:5)
No fucking thanks.
LK
Re:Um, I think I'll save my pennies (Score:2)
The anti-cybersquatting act was a bad idea. Have you heard about verizonreallysucks.com? This law is all about giving power to big money organizations and businesses.
LK
How is this disturbing? (Score:5)
If you aren't paying for a domain, why should you be allowed to hang onto it?
Re:UID.COM up for auction. (Score:1)
Re:Um, I think I'll save my pennies (Score:2)
No. Absolutely incorrect. You don't "own" a domain in the same sense that you "own" a house. You lease it from any of a number of properly-licensed registrars. It's your virtual apartment.
Seeing as you realize that Network Solutions isn't the US Government, you also realize that the Third Amendment doesn't apply to them; it is therefore irrelevant in this context.
Really? Is that so? Please answer the following questions truthfully:
1) Did you register a domain name with Network Solutions?
2) If so, did you agree to their terms and conditions?
If your answer to Question #1 is "No," then this is none of your business. You're not involved. These aren't the old days when NSI having the monopoly on .COM/.NET/.ORG. You can choose your own registrar now. Allow NSI to alienate its customer base by screwing it over. If they end up pissing enough people off, they will die.
If your answer to Question #1 is "Yes," then your answer to Question #2 also has to be "Yes." You have to agree to their terms and conditions to do business with them. You may not like it, but you agreed that they could change the agreement upon notifying you, which is what they just did.
Perhaps the problem is that you didn't read what you were agreeing to. If that is indeed the case, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Grow up. Deal with it. Move on. Find a different registrar.
Re:Dealing with NSI is *just* like dealing with M$ (Score:2)
I recently registered a second domain with a different registrar.
I do some web hosting for small businesses and individuals. Since I read about Dotster [dotster.com] here on /., I've registered 19 domains with them. It's been problem-free and the web interface is light years better than NSI's stupid email-based crap. I am concerned, however, about 3 personal domains I've had for some time that are still over at NSI. I'd like to move them, but I don't want them to disappear into a black hole, and NSI just seems to be getting more aggresive about losing existing domains to other registrars.
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
The bill collector is knocking (Score:3)
IANAL (Score:2)
I don't know how important this domain is to the company, but say their main site goes down because they lost their domain. What will they do?
They will go after NSI. When they realize NSI is bigger than they are, they will go after you. Nevermind the ethics of the situation; just protect yourself and your $$$ and send a note to your former employer, and wash your hands of this business.
Here's where it gets slimy (I think) (Score:4)
~luge
This is why it's so disturbing! (Score:5)
Also, wasn't it NSI that claimed that domains were not property so they wouldn't be liable for hijacks? They're not making sense because by holding these auctions they are making it clear that domains ARE property and contradicting themselves.
Re:Register with Joker.com (Score:3)
Re:Maybe we'd pay if... (Score:2)
D
----
Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:2)
Hooptie
correcting you (Score:2)
Of course if someone registers the name they can always switch it over to another registrar, but they're still stuck with having to pay money to NSI.
This is complete bullshit, NSI should not be able to do this.
Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Anyway, there are two reasons why that opinion isn't valid here:
Any court case about this using that opinion as a precedent would get thrown out by a level-headed judge.
And from an invalid domain name, no less. (Score:2)
Re-monopolizing is why it's so disturbing! (Score:2)
NSI BS -- Also, Help? Anyone With Info? (Score:2)
The only problem is, I'm not sure how to handle the process of transferring my domain name without getting screwed by NSI. I've heard a lot of horror stories from people who have attempted to do just that. Could someone offer some advice on when, how and what to do for transferring your domain name from one registrar to another? Specifically from NSI?
Should I wait until it has expired and just renew it somewhere else? Should I do it before it expires? Do I have to send any paperwork or follow any specific process through NSI themselves? I know a lot of this info is available on NSI, but it's so obfuscated and unreliable that I would rather have information not from what they say but from the reality of what occurs -- and who best to ask than people who may hav already gone through this?
Thanks for any help you can provide!
---
seumas.com
Re:wrong (Score:2)
Re:Um, I think I'll save my pennies (Score:2)
Again, I'm not involved with the law industry in any way (thank goodness), but I do think that if a company/person/corporate entity does not pay for a domain name that they registered then they no longer have the rights to it, even if they try to use trademark law to prove otherwise. Since they are not paying for it, they are (in essence) not actively pursuing to protect the trademark and would probably (read: should) lose in court.
very good point (Score:2)
Good point. When a bank auctions off a house, after the bank is paid off, the auctioneer the fees, etc.. if there is anything left, it's supposed to go to the guy who had the house seized (or his other creditors perhaps). I'm sure NSI will (perhaps illegally?) pocket the change.
This is a bad faith thing, especially given NSI's poor record of missing received payments, of which stories on
--
What is really scary about this... (Score:2)
But lets think for a moment...
They *own* your domain name, not you. If you loose it for whatever reason, too bad.
They can now auction off deadbeat names instead of sending them back into the pool, with the potential to make huge sums of money.
Their billing practices are horrible (read further down this thread for examples).
So... for all you conspiracy theorists, whats to stop a big company from simply paying someone at NSI off to "accidentally loose" your billing info. You don't get the handy reminder that its time to pay, in the hope that you forget about it for whatever reason. You do that, it goes on the auction market, somebody else buys it out from under you for a large sum of money. You have no recourse, because they own the domains and can do whatever they want with them.
Feel free to add your own conspiracy theories, thats just a sample. The real point is that this is almost a license for them to print money. Not that it'll help anybody steal names from big corporations who can just sue over them anyway, but the little people will get shafted around nicely here.
Especially if you take it to the next logical step. If this sticks, whats to stop them from auctioning off *all* domains? Think about it. Its not that far away from this, because once again they own the domain. So, you could pay $35 to renew it, but what happens if someone else is willing to pay $100? $1000? $10000? That may sound rediculous now, but go back a couple short years, and the notion that anybody but you owned your domain names was equally rediculous. Its not that far fetched do this kind of auctioning anymore.
I really hope ICANN does something about this, but... yeah right. ICANN seems to work for NSI, not the other way around.
Re:Here's where it gets slimy (I think) (Score:4)
Not how I read it. I read the text of the message being that the auction will only go as high as the $35 registration fee.
Any and all proceeds that we receive from the transfer of your domain name registration (up to the full registration fee) will be retained by Network Solutions and your domain name will be transferred to the successful bidder. By selecting this option, you hereby authorize us to act as your contact to perform all necessary actions relating to the auction and transfer of your domain name registration.
They control it (Score:2)
Re:I got this one (Business Account version) (Score:2)
Payment received from the auciton 'up to the full amount of the registration fee' will be kept by network solutions.. does that mean that excess money will be handed to the domain registrant?
Re:Sounds like a get rich fast scheme to me... (Score:2)
Re:Umm... (Score:2)
certain ISPs and other companie shave 'premier' agreemetns with NSI, in that they can register domains on behalf of their own clients *without paying nsi immediately*. (you or I can no longer do this.. we must pay immediately).
By contractual obligation, these companies *MUST* pay NSI for domains registered, whether their own clients back out or not. So.. generally, at an ISP doing this in volume, many people (enough, anyway) will bail out and leave the ISP hanging with an obligation to pay NSI for the domain (as per contract) and no client to collect from. So, until the payment is resolved, the domain is *technically* registered....
NSI is saying that now, rather than simpliy *having* to pay NSI for the defaulted domain, they may choose to have NSI auction it off, whereby NSI will collect fees 'up to the amount owed' and then the rest would go to
This actually does make sense in context
And I've been watching a domain too... (Score:3)
Well perfect, now I guess it'll be auctioned off "to recover collection fees?" That's ridiculous. It sounds like you enter a lifelong committment to continually renew your domain or else face foreclosure or something.
As far as the one I've been watching, I guess it'll just go on the auction block. Cripes...
Next thing they'll probably do is modify the CGI script on their home page that let's you "check domain availability" and then roll it right into a new auction so all new domains are instantly an auctionable item too... :(
Re:Maybe we'd pay if... (Score:2)
Really? I never had any trouble with it.
I'd always fire off 2 copies of everything - one signed cleartext, the other ascii armored.
One of them would always go through in a couple of days.
I may have had many reasons for fleeing NSI, but the PGP authentication option wasn't one of them
--
Email address is real.
Re:Um, I think I'll save my pennies (Score:2)
This is precicely what just happened with PETA.
Do you really not get it or are you pretending?
LK
Re:Um, I think I'll save my pennies (Score:2)
Not copyright. Trademark. Very big, very important differences. Not least of which is that, for most trademarks (i.e. marks that are not "famous" and are not-generic terms like "United" or "Garden"), more than one person can use the identical trademark, provided they're in different businesses.
That's almost like "Monopoly" :) (Score:2)
Now, in the game "Monopoly", doesn't it state that if a player is not willing to buy a new estate, it will be auctioned and sold to the highest bidder?
Looks like Internic is still addicted to "Monopoly", be it for real or a game
Re:Network Solutions is a bad thing (TM) (Score:2)
Re:its about time something was done (Score:2)
Netsol, and other registrants, according to icann guidelines, require immediate payment (ie: visa or prepaid account) in order to register a domain. You can't do this anymore.
Re:Maybe we'd pay if... (Score:2)
I still wouldn't use NSI anymore, but they do have better protection than the stupid MAIL-FROM that everyone loves to hate.
If you have paid for them they arent yours either. (Score:2)
So, yes, everyone using NSI is at risk of being affected by this, not just deadbeats.
What's the big deal? (Score:2)
I Got a bill for a company I don't work for (Score:3)
Since I don't work for the company in question I fired off a reply telling them so. However, knowing NSI's notorious lack of ethics, I wouldn't be surprised to see my credit rating impacted regardless. Won't make any difference -- I don't pay former employer's bills and they will get nothing from me.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to be a standard practice... (Score:3)
It'd just be nice to see one of the bigwigs get nailed with this... Seeing Microsoft lose www.microsoft.com would be funny... of course, even if you won the auction, you couldn't really do anything with it, because of recent laws and court decisions against cyber squatting and trademark infringment... that could be an interesting scenario...
Hypocracy? Maybe... (Score:2)
It's a little hypocritical in that NSI seems to have claimed in a court case that domain names are not property, but there are plenty of examples of corporate hypocracy out there. This is a pretty minor example, in my book.
I think that the answer to the problem is simple: Pay your bill! NSI is due their money if your domain is registered through them. If you don't re-register it with another registrar, or if you don't cancel the domain, they are certainly entitled to their payment for maintaining it in their system.
My gut feeling is that all the people complaining about this don't like NSI because they are NSI...it's great to pile on NSI just like it is with Microsoft. But I don't think that NSI is doing anything wrong, other than maybe looking a little foolish in their arguments over what is property and what is not.
=h=
Maybe we'd pay if... (Score:5)
Perhaps NSI should be made accountable for this kind of stupidity. I can't imagine not getting an encryped password from NSI. I can't imagine NSI not requiring confirmation on domain name changes. They've even admitted that this thing has happened before.
I don't speak for my employer, of course, but I'd think twice about renewing my domain through NSI without some kind of insurance against this kind of thing.
Yes, I'm a little perterbed about it. No, it doesn't effect me personally. Yet.
Jeff
Umm... (Score:2)
If it isn't paid for, then it's not registered. If it's not registered, then nobody should be able to 'auction' it without registering it first. And I belive netsol should not be allowed to do this.
After reading it again.. (Score:2)
a) register a domain
and
b) Not pay for it after several notices.
In effect, netsol has performed a 'service' for them, and have yet to be paid.
I think it's sleazy, and the real answer should simply be to delete the domain immediately upon non-payment, and allow it to be re-registered by someone else, as technically, the contract is void.
Re:Maybe we'd pay if... (Score:2)
Re:Seems to be a standard practice... (Score:2)
Auctioning ownership? (Score:5)
JHK
http://www.cascap.org and stop on by for a latte, huh? [cascap.org]
Re:I hope dot.tv is a hoax (Score:2)
I guess it would get interesting if, say, the US corporation "ABC" decided to go head to head with the Australian Broadcasting Coproration - both of whom would have a valid claim to the domain.
"consulting domain holders" (Score:5)
Uhh, that's not how I read it.
Three e-mails to two addresses AFTER you've forgotten to pay the bill sounds like a reasonable attempt to contact the domain holder.
--
Re:Um, I think I'll save my pennies (Score:2)
Dealing with NSI is *just* like dealing with M$... (Score:3)
Refuse to use their products & services. I recently registered a second domain with a different registrar. They're cheaper, have a much easier to use administration setup, and you can actually talk to them on phone if you have a question. They even made transferrring my current domain from NSI easy & painless.
NSI has never had to think about customer service before, and they are apparently completely incapable of even understanding the concept - as a result, the new registrars that do understand it are going to (hopefully) bury them.
Re:yep (Score:2)
If you have a car that you don't drive on the public roads, you don't have to pay registration at all, you can just go to the DMV and have them suspend your registration (putting it in 'storage'). Of course you can't drive it when it is suspended, but all you have to do to unsuspend it is go in and pay the new registration fee -- you don't have to pay for the unused portion of time.
The deal is, the car is still yours, even if it has expired registration. They can take away the registration, but not the car. Property taxes are a little bit different than registration fees. Property taxes are due no matter what, and they can place a lien against the property and eventually foreclose against it based on that.
Perhaps my state is more reasonable than average on this as far as cars are concerned... But I don't understand why NSI thinks that they can get away with considering domain name registrations to be more like a property tax than a registration fee like a car...
Re:I hope dot.tv is a hoax (Score:2)
If ABC decided they wanted to get abc.tv for their great new internet TV station, they would put in their notice, and dot.tv would put it up for auction, so, say CBS could bid on it too. ABC would have to be the highest bidder in order to get the domain which they deserve. With all that, ethics go right out the window. Greed is the winner on this playing field.
All this crap really makes me appreciate Linux, Apache, MySQL, and people who really understand good business.
Re:Um, I think I'll save my pennies (Score:2)
If the trademark is owned by a person or company their ability to pay for services related to using that mark (i.e. a domain name, a sign for their building or packaging for their widgets) is not tied to their ability to pay for those goods and services.
Intellectual property auctions are very popular (patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets) and I've been to many. The owner of the mark realizes he cannot be in business for whatever reason. He doesn't loose the power of his mark and may choose to auction it to another company who then gains the right to protect the mark.
Even if I don't care about a trademark I own - I have the right to protect it and tell anyone who is being confusingly similar to "knock it right off".
Harry Dean is the man! (Score:2)
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Why Internic claims to OWN all Domains (Score:3)
"up to the full registration fee" (Score:2)
Can someone tell me exactly what's being implied by "up to the full registration fee" here? Does that mean they won't auction them for more than $35? Or does it mean if they auction it for $10,000, NSI keeps $35 and then NSI keeps $9,965?
--
Re:Um, I think I'll save my pennies (Score:2)
Two different cases, as already pointed out.
Re:If you have paid for them they arent yours eith (Score:2)
That is an entirely seperate issue.
So, yes, everyone using NSI is at risk of being affected by this, not just deadbeats.
How? If the bill is paid on time the domain does not go up for auction. Period. I fail to see how the issue of screwed up contact info relates to this. They don't have to have your contact info right for your to pay your bill on time.
-JF
Auctioning vs. Revocation (Score:2)
Basically, it transforms the importance of being first to the importance of having money (and the will to use it.) This is what I don't appreciate.
Re:Um, I think I'll save my pennies (Score:2)
As I understand it, the scenario that you described is exactly the wya it happened with Peta and mtd.com, but the judge still took the domain.
LK