Re: [OT] Theiving B*****ds
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2004
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 59408
interpreted = N
texte = Here's what I'd like to see... A 30-day period after expiration of a domain name during which the domain is disabled at the root DNS, and nobody except the previous owner can re-register it. Sometimes the contact info in an old registration gets out of date, and the domain owner doesn't know about the pending destruction of his/her website (to quote Douglas Adams, "There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demotition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now."). A 30-day window would allow the legitimate domain owner to find out that domain expired (because it doesn't work anymore) and have a chance to fix the problem before the ambulance chasers grab it. - brian On Sep 17, 2004, at 8:56 AM, John Peacock wrote: > Alan White wrote: > >> There should be a limit on the amount of time that these so called >> legitimately operating business can hold domains... > > To play devil's advocate, please define concisely how you can > differentiate domain squatters/pirates from companies who register > alternate domains and simply redirect them to the main domain (or do > nothing with them at all). We fall into that category; I have a > couple of domains where I registered several variants that I am never > going to use in any constructive fashion, but I will continue to renew > until the end of time to keep the porn merchants from sullying our > corporate name. > > I know of one domain I own that someone else would like to have, but > we were unable to come to an agreement on a reasonable price (and my > last offer was $200). The domain was something we inherited when we > purchased another publisher and although we are not currently using > the domain, we do have that imprint (i.e. name) that we could at some > point decide to revive. Hence the domain name has a value for us > above and beyond the cost of registration itself. > > I payed $2000 for a four letter domain a number of years ago and I was > happy to do so, since it had great value to us to own the domain. > That's the nature of the marketplace; domain registrations are a > limited resource (c.f. Highlander - There Can Be Only One!). It is > inevitable in such an environment that speculators will spring up. > > The reality of the situation is that the domain name system was set up > in a simpler time (remember they were originally free). ICANN is an > incompetent bunch of wankers, intent only on getting comped for travel > to far flung meetings worldwide where nothing is accomplished. And > it's going to stay that way because Network Solutions likes it that > way (and they have powerful friends and lots of money to throw > around). > > If someone has registered a domain name that you believe is rightfully > yours, your only choice is the UDRP. If you have a legitimate > business, you can afford the cost (it costs less to file a UDRP than > it does to incorporate in most states). > > John > > -- > John Peacock > Director of Information Research and Technology > Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group > 4501 Forbes Boulevard > Suite H > Lanham, MD 20706 > 301-459-3366 x.5010 > fax 301-429-5748 ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list
. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Here's what I'd like to see... A 30-day period after expiration of a domain name during which the domain is disabled at the root DNS, and nobody except the previous owner can re-register it. Sometimes the contact info in an old registration gets out of date, and the domain owner doesn't know about the pending destruction of his/her website (to quote Douglas Adams, "There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demotition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now."). A 30-day window would allow the legitimate domain owner to find out that domain expired (because it doesn't work anymore) and have a chance to fix the problem before the ambulance chasers grab it. - brian On Sep 17, 2004, at 8:56 AM, John Peacock wrote: > Alan White wrote: > >> There should be a limit on the amount of time that these so called >> legitimately operating business can hold domains... > > To play devil's advocate, please define concisely how you can > differentiate domain squatters/pirates from companies who register > alternate domains and simply redirect them to the main domain (or do > nothing with them at all). We fall into that category; I have a > couple of domains where I registered several variants that I am never > going to use in any constructive fashion, but I will continue to renew > until the end of time to keep the porn merchants from sullying our > corporate name. > > I know of one domain I own that someone else would like to have, but > we were unable to come to an agreement on a reasonable price (and my > last offer was $200). The domain was something we inherited when we > purchased another publisher and although we are not currently using > the domain, we do have that imprint (i.e. name) that we could at some > point decide to revive. Hence the domain name has a value for us > above and beyond the cost of registration itself. > > I payed $2000 for a four letter domain a number of years ago and I was > happy to do so, since it had great value to us to own the domain. > That's the nature of the marketplace; domain registrations are a > limited resource (c.f. Highlander - There Can Be Only One!). It is > inevitable in such an environment that speculators will spring up. > > The reality of the situation is that the domain name system was set up > in a simpler time (remember they were originally free). ICANN is an > incompetent bunch of wankers, intent only on getting comped for travel > to far flung meetings worldwide where nothing is accomplished. And > it's going to stay that way because Network Solutions likes it that > way (and they have powerful friends and lots of money to throw > around). > > If someone has registered a domain name that you believe is rightfully > yours, your only choice is the UDRP. If you have a legitimate > business, you can afford the cost (it costs less to file a UDRP than > it does to incorporate in most states). > > John > > -- > John Peacock > Director of Information Research and Technology > Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group > 4501 Forbes Boulevard > Suite H > Lanham, MD 20706 > 301-459-3366 x.5010 > fax 301-429-5748 ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Brian Fries
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Late on Friday.... brain fried (2002)
how realize an advertiser ? (2005)
WebCat2b12 CGI Mac - [shownext] problem (1997)
POST Datamissing? (1998)
wild question (1998)
Sort on time (2003)
WCS Newbie question (1997)
[WebDNA] Silly question (2009)
F3 crashing server (1997)
NetSplat and WebCat2 (1997)
Windows 2.1b2 Append Bug? (1997)
modified storedbuilder (was: show me your store) (2003)
CommandSecurity? (1997)
filemaker - orderfile (1997)
[Announce] Newest Commerce Site based on WebCatalog (1997)
[WebDNA] why is this cookie being set to expire at end of (2009)
upgrading 5.0 --> 5.1g (2004)
How to find 100 most recent additions. (1997)
Sorting error (1997)
Question about [encrypt] (1998)