NSI to require immediate payment for some 35
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.
Re:All this is great but... (Score:1)
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
Domain squatters should be shot. (Score:1)
Re:NSI Joys (Score:1)
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
A blow to clubs and small business (Score:2)
Ack. That would kind of have sucked back when my local SCA group decided to register a name. Oh wait, it's a
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.
Restrictions (Score:3)
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?
Oh and by the way... (Score:1)
Have you forgotten that they were HACKED
Turnabout's fair play (Score:1)
www.microsfot.com [microsfot.com]
aj
Re:Let's run and get our credit cards!!! (Score:1)
Re:Restrictions (Score:1)
Re:Restrictions (Score:2)
* 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
How about... (Score:1)
http://www.microsoff.com/
this is actually a Good Thing (tm) (Score:1)
Yipee (Score:1)
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.
All this is great but... (Score:2)
A blow to cybersquatters (Score:2)
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
Most important good thing about this (Score:2)
Here's An Idea (Score:2)
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
.coms (Score:2)
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
by harenet on Sunday July 11, @06:42AM EDT (#216)
(User Info)
as the "king" inferred, "selling"
obviously,
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
certainly been tempted). and MANY of our
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
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
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
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)
Let's run and get our credit cards!!! (Score:1)
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
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.
No sir, I don't like it! (Score:3)
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.
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.)
NSI vs. ICANN (Score:3)
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]e t.html [nytimes.com]
[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/10n
[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.
Re:A blow to cybersquatters (Score:2)
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
Re:A blow to cybersquatters (Score:1)
Re:Let's run and get our credit cards!!! (Score:1)
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?
A bit of history ... (Score:2)
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
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
----
They will continue to do it any way (Score:1)
on the subject of NSI... (Score:2)
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
NSI Joys (Score:1)
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