Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

ICANN Takes a Step Toward Ending Domain Tasting

Posted by kdawson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 02:24 PM
from the what-we-don't-need-when-we-don't-need-it dept.
The Internet
An anonymous reader writes "For years, domain squatters have exploited an ICANN loophole: whenever a domain name is registered, ICANN collects a 20-cent fee from the registrar. To allow for non-paying customers, the registrar can return it five days later for a full refund. The loophole has let unscrupulous registrars constantly create and refund domain-squatting websites, selling 'what you need when you need it' advertising. The problem has grown so bad that every month the world's top three domain squatters, all located in Miami with the same address and represented by the same lawyer, recycle 11 million domain names. After years of complaints, ICANN has finally begun moving on the problem. On April 17 ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization voted to make the ICANN 20-cent fee non-refundable. If the ICANN board ratifies this position in June, those top three squatters will be getting a monthly bill for $2.2M. News of the ICANN changes has been applauded by legitimate Internet businesses, tired of having to choose nonsense names because all the good ones have been squatted. ICANN has published an analysis of the economics of ending domain squatting."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: ICANN ends Domain Squatters Free Ride by Anonymous Coward
[+] Technology: The Beginnings of a TLD Free-For-All? 489 comments
Mordok-DestroyerOfWo writes "According to the BBC, ICANN is considering opening up the wholesale creation of TLDs by private industry. While I'm sure this is done for the convenience of the companies and has nothing to do with the several thousand dollars they will be charging for each registration, I was curious what the tech community at large thought about this idea. It seems to me that this will simply open the doors for a never-ending stream of TLD squatters."
[+] Technology: ICANN to Add Anti Front Running Charge? 63 comments
shashib writes to tell us that ICANN is considering a new $0.20 per-transaction fee for large numbers of domain registrations in order to curtail domain tasting abuse. Network Solutions, previously accused of front-running, is offering their support of the new approach and promises to remove the security measures that caused such a commotion back in January. "Because of the prevalence of these practices, earlier this year Network Solutions enacted an opt-in domain protection measure for our customers that reserves available domains for four days. If ICANN adopts the anti-tasting provision, Network Solutions will feel safe in discontinuing its service since the non-refundable fee will deflate domain taster's profits and provide a substantial blow to front runners who use and sell search data for tasting purposes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

ICANN Takes a Step Toward Ending Domain Tasting 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Higher. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mingot (665080) on Tuesday April 29 2008, @02:27PM (#23242654)
    Make it a buck.
    • Make it 5 bucks, people legitimately registering a domain would not be affected and registrars would end up ending domain tasting in its entirety.

      All the registrars are gonna do is go 'Ok, $5 non-refundable if you cancel this domain' or something to that effect.
      • This is simply not true. If the fee was raised to $5, the cost to registrees would go up at least $4.80. Remember, the $0.20 currently goes to ICANN, not the registrars. If the costs to the registrars goes up, the cost to the registrees will go up as well.
      • I'm cool with that.

        very cool with it, in fact. [slashdot.org]
      • The (legitimate) registrars would not want to have to pay for the cost of this in the event of a normal user/company returning a domain,

        Why would the registrar be paying this charge when someone returns a domain? It should be the registree who pays this. If you register a domain, part of the contract will be ".20c is nonrefundable" or "$1 is nonrefundable" or whatever.

        The cost of a real registration should not go up to cover those who borrow them.

        • I'd rather the price be higher. Domains are cheap, and cheap leads to massive amounts of squatting. If you really need 100 personal domain names, then you shouldn't object to paying for them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Uncle Focker (1277658)
        No, they just have a clause that says that $1 of the fee you pay to the registrar is nonrefundable. No need to price things higher at all.
      • No refunds. You have no refunds on software. The web site for purchase usually gives the user a chance to cancel the order before placed. Domains are not so expensive that one should not have to pay for their mistake, especially after having plenty of opportunities to cancel.
      • How do you know how many domains someone has? My server is hosting about 75 domains but only a few of them are mine and those all appear to be registered to different groups yet I'm the tech contact for all the rest.

        Remember when .eu was started up, there were people who set up several registrars who each had lots of companies claiming ownership to some domains and in the case of sex.eu there were about 200 different ones that improperly claimed a trademark so in the end it was given to a random one of the
  • So if this goes through, will these three squatters be forced to bend over?

  • This could create a worse problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by davidwr (791652) on Tuesday April 29 2008, @02:32PM (#23242720) Homepage Journal
    Now those squatters and domain registrars will work together to keep those domains locked up for good. If the domain registrars themselves are the ones registering the domains, their true cost will be a lot less than $6/year, especially if 90% of the domains resolve to the same IP address/web ad parking page.

    I mean, how much does it cost for Registrar A and its affiliate company B to register 1M domain-names and point them all to the same IP address? Not $6M/year.
    • No the registrars themselves have to pay ~ $6 a year/per name to the registry ( verisign ) for the domains they themselves purchase. So yes, it does cost anyone other than verisign at least 6 million to register 1 Million names.

    • Re:This could create a worse problem (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eln (21727) on Tuesday April 29 2008, @03:00PM (#23243094) Homepage
      Forcing non-refundable fees would kill the profit margins because these guys would then have to pay for domains that aren't generating any revenue for them. As it is now, they can register thousands of domains essentially for free and get rid of the ones that don't make any money.

      I think it's a good plan, but I think the 20 cents is too low. There should be a 1 or even 5 or 10 dollar fee that's non-refundable, and the total cost of a domain should be higher than it is. That would help eliminate domain tasting as well as eliminate domain squatting, wherein legitimate users have to pay inflated prices for domains anyway because squatters are holding them hostage.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by drinkypoo (153816)

              it seems like he portrayed domain squatting or various forms of domain farming as a valid business.

              Back to school with you!

              Forcing non-refundable fees would kill the profit margins because these guys is what he said. He didn't say that was a bad thing; the next paragraph states I think it's a good plan, but I think the 20 cents is too low. There should be a 1 or even 5 or 10 dollar fee that's non-refundable, and the total cost of a domain should be higher than it is. That would help eliminate domain tasting as well as eliminate domain squatting...

              He said that the fee should be raised, which should h

      • That's cheap for a business. Even a McDonald's requires at least $2M per year to break even.

        Considering they charge at least $6 per domain of pure profit versus pay $.20 they pay out (30x more!), it's a very good deal. That way they have money for sexy superbowl ads!

  • the ICANNon has fired! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bananatree3 (872975) on Tuesday April 29 2008, @02:37PM (#23242806)
    Gasp! The ICANNon has fired a shot at the domain squatters! That thing has been sitting there for years rusting, I never thought I'd see the day it actually did anything.

  • More feel-good decisions, less real action (Score:4, Insightful)

    by damn_registrars (1103043) on Tuesday April 29 2008, @02:39PM (#23242838) Journal
    So it looks like our buddies at ICANN are again ignoring the larger problems that they could take action against, in favor of solving problems that only a small group of people care about.

    I would be much more impressed with ICANN if they actually started punishing the registrars that are so blatantly making profit from internet crime. There is a long list of registrars that sell .com domains to spam kings like Kuvayev for him to sell drugs and pirated software. And conveniently enough, many of these registrars will claim to not speak English when you try to ask them about it through their support - even though they provide registration details in clear English. And these same registrars will claim to be located overseas anyways, and hence are not responsible for following US laws.

    ICANN has allowed a long list of criminals to make money off the internet. It is one thing to turn a blind eye to a foreign domain registry, but ICANN is turning a blind eye towards the .com and .org registries as well, all in the apparent name of profit.
    • It's bigger than you think. In 2007 a majority of domains registered were for tasting purposes.

      • It's bigger than you think. In 2007 a majority of domains registered were for tasting purposes.

        That may be true, but it doesn't really counter my statement of it being a problem that only a small group of people care about. I would have a very hard time believing that domain tasting has affected anywhere near as many people on the internet as has the spam that has been made possible by complacent registrars and the do-nothing organization known as ICANN.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by iamhigh (1252742) *
      Spam and internet crimes are just that, crimes. Trying to hold ICANN accountable for the registrars, who have to police who they sell to is ridiculous.

      I bet they use Dell servers to send out the spam, should we require Dell to ensure that all sales are for legit reasons? What about Western Digital and Best Buy that sell all those hard drives to pedos?

      It's a nice thought, but probably impossible, and definately illogical.

      • Trying to hold ICANN accountable for the registrars, who have to police who they sell to is ridiculous.

        Its not a question of ICANN being held responsible for the actions of their customers (the registrars). Its a question of ICANN actually holding registrars to the terms of registrar obligations [icann.org] in the registrar accreditation agreement [icann.org]. In particular, ICANN requires that the registrars maintain valid contact data for their customers, which they seldom do when selling to spammers.

        I'm not asking for ICANN to "police" anyone. I'm just asking for them to actually require accredited registrars to meet t

        • say i have put some individual i paid $200 a month in cape verde islands as domain registrar. and icann held registrar to its agreement and get this individual's contact info. WHAT is icann going to do about this ? what is anyone going to do about this ?
          • ICANN has the ability to strip a registrar of their ability to sell domains in many of the largest TLDs. Indeed, that is exactly what the accreditation is about - it allows a registrar to sell domains in those TLDs. ICANN is supposed to - though almost never does - strip a registrar of their accreditation and ability to sell these domains when they fail to obey the rules.

            It is by no means as punitive as a legal action, but it can be crippling for a registrar to lose their ability to sell .com domains, f
            • its not about what registrar does. its about WHAT i do. if i put a cayman citizen as registrar in there, set up entire operation in his name, and neither icann nor wto nor us govt cant do shit about it, because whatever that is being done is LEGAL in cayman.

        • They can take your domain away if you provide false information on your whois

          Who can take your domain away?

          ICANN won't do it. I can tell you that because I've filled out the bad WHOIS data form for dozens of domains and they've never been taken away by ICANN.

          The registrars generally won't do it, either. Hell, they're making money off of the customer whose bad data they submitted. What is the incentive for them to fix it, unless the customer asked them to?

          The problem lies with ICANN. They have set rules, but then they don't actually enforce them. There are registrar

    • Re:More feel-good decisions, less real action (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Have Blue (616) on Tuesday April 29 2008, @04:17PM (#23244394) Homepage
      "I'm not going to sell you this domain because I disapprove of the purpose for which you will use it" is a dangerous position to take. What's happening here is just closing a loophole that allows domains to be used for free- a simple, clear problem.

      • "I'm not going to sell you this domain because I disapprove of the purpose for which you will use it" is a dangerous position to take. What's happening here is just closing a loophole that allows domains to be used for free- a simple, clear problem.

        The first problem with your statement is the fact that ICANN does not sell domains. I'm talking about problems with ICANN and how the regulate (or rather fail to regulate) the registrars that they are tasked with the regulation of.

        It has nothing to do with whether or not ICANN gives a damn what domains are being used for - they've already shown they don't. It has to do with the fact that ICANN has laid out rules that registrars are supposed to be obliged to follow (see the link I posted previously)

    • while serious, spam kings and internet crime is not impacting everyone on the net. however squatting is affecting EVERYone, whether they are startups trying to get a good domain or ordinary people trying to set up a family album site.

      • squatting is affecting EVERYone, whether they are startups trying to get a good domain or ordinary people trying to set up a family album site.

        I disagree. How many people who are using the internet are looking to purchase a domain name, if they don't already own one? There are plenty of users on the internet who have zero interest in owning a domain name - for that matter there is still a large portion of internet users who wouldn't even know what to do with their own domain name, if it were given to them for free this afternoon.

        On the other hand, though, how many email addresses don't receive spam of some sort anymore? The statistics o

        • same arguments can be put against internet crime in your context. each email receives spam. the people who are using decent services like gmail, or serious web hosts for email do not receive any noticeable amount of spam. first hand experience. its a choice matter, not inevitability.
  • This happened to me a few weeks ago. It's a repugnant practice - and I am far from a knee-jerk, anti-corporate person. But just because my friend made the mistake of looking up our domain using NSI, and we needed it in a rush, we were forced to buy it from NSI, even though we could have gotten it for a fraction of the cost somewhere else.

    The service that registrars provide is so basic, if someone can charge NSI's prices, it means that there is a market failure.
  • Domain squatters are by far one of the biggest things holding back the Internet. Squatting has gotten so bad that the name of your company has to be complete gibberish in order to match an available domain name. Just try coming up with a company name that has a similar domain name available. You'll find that most of the domains you try either have some sort of spam link portal or a "buy this domain for $200!" page. Only a few are actual web sites. If you don't believe me, try it.

    This "domain tasting" thing
    • What you describe as bigger issues are actually just facets of the domain tasting issue itself.
    • Australia doesn't have this problem this week. They require that you have a registered business name or some other reason for having the domain name and as a result it has kept the com.au domain name space fairly clean how ever soon they will be changing the rules so they can make more money by allowing the criminals in.

  • Let's see: 365 days a year, and they can only hold them for 5 days, so that's 73 times a year to cycle a name (give or take). Let's just round it to 75 because I'm cool like that.

    So .20 a cycle at 75 cycles per year means it'll cost a whole $15.00 per year to taste a domain name.

    Sure, with 11 million domains to cycle through that makes for a pretty big number. But, Considering that you can sell useful domains for anywhere from $20 to $20,000... They can still keep cycling all they want. Just the less

    • it'll cost a whole $15.00 per year to taste a domain name.
      It only costs about $7/year to register a domain outright. But the tasters are making less than $7/year in revenue from each domain, so they can't afford to either register them or continue tasting.
  • I thought shooting then on sight would be a nice and permanent solution to the problem, but I can live with billing them 2M a month ;)

  • They should require that a site must have a certain % of content (beside ads) that is related to de domain name for at least x amount of time or they can deny it. Like a "probation" period. Is it feasible ?

    It seems that some people are forgetting that a domain name has nothing to do with a website. That is, hosting a "legit" and "useful" website using a domain name is NOT the only reasonable activity that demonstrated "non-squatting".

    A domain name is simple a human language token for an system of IP address

    • Re:Squatting = 5 Days??? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JustCallMeRich (1185429) on Tuesday April 29 2008, @03:23PM (#23243496) Homepage
      Imagine if you will, a place where 5 days lasts forever. A week never goes by. A lawn never gets mowed.

      Unpossible, you say? Not if you are really a sham company who buys a domain name and returns it 4.9 days later, only to be immediately picked back up again by another sham company which happens to be located in the same place as the first, and again only holds the domain name for another 4.9 days to again return it for a refund and have it immediately picked back up again by a third sham company - a mirror image of the past two, which again holds the domain for 4.9 days, only again to return it for a full refund, at which time the first sham company picks it up again, starting the cycle all over again, ad infinitum - and at $0.00 net cost to the companies.

      It's not that squatting = 5 days, but that this process continues for years. Making that $0.20 fee non-refundable means that now every 4.9 days in the above merry-go-round, there is a 20 cent charge for that domain name. What used to be free to do will now cost $1.50 a month - PER DOMAIN NAME if they keep doing this, which, obviously they will not be able to afford.

      Chances are they will now have to cough up some hard cash to actually register the million or so domain names they have, or let them expire and be free amongst the intertubes yet again for legitamite buyers to catch.
      • though im working in web hosting field since 2003, i havent seen this issue explained that good and that short. actually some of what you told, i even didnt know.
      • Your post reads as if it were written for Don Lafontaine ;-) Not that that is a bad thing, of course...

        "In a world...

        Where 5 days last forever...

        A week never goes by...

        A lawn never gets mowed..."

    • How do you bill for that?
      How do you collect?
      Who gets the money?

      If you can figure that out, and allow people to send 2500 email a month for no charge, it might work.

      Of course, spammers will find away around it, like have other peoples computers send the emails.

    • Spammers aren't sending the emails; computers taken over by malware are. Thus, under your plan, the spammers will be charged nothing, and hundreds of thousands of users will be f'ed over. You may say forget them, the bill will be a wake up call to clean their computers. While it's true, in an ideal world these people would have installed software to prevent malware, this is not an ideal world and there are people out there who are not at all computer savvy. We shouldn't punish them for that.
    • Probably only to a limited extent - after all, domains along those liens are very likely not 'tasted', but registered permanently because of their potential value.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.