ICANN Takes a Step Toward Ending Domain Tasting

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."

Higher.

Make it a buck.

Re:

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 e

Re:

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 we

Re:

I'm cool with that.

very cool with it, in fact. [slashdot.org]

Re:

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.

Re:

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:

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.

It is simple.

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 opp

Three squatters...

So if this goes through, will these three squatters be forced to bend over?

This could create a worse problem

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.

Re:

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

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:

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 sho

the ICANNon has fired!

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

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.

Re:

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

Re:

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 ha

Re:

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

Re:

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,

Re:More feel-good decisions, less real action

"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.

Hear hear

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

doesn't go far enough

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

It has a flavr?

That's when I first saw goatse and I still have a bad taste in my mouth.

Eeeeew! You aren't supposed to use your mouth on that.

Re:

You suck.

Re:Squatting = 5 Days???

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.