Suspension of reissuing deleted domain names
In the spirit of open communication, please read the following notice re : reissuing of deleted domain domain names... Until further notice, Network Solutions will be temporarily suspending the process of deleting domain names for which payment has not been received. In recent weeks the InterNIC has been spammed repeatedly with tens of thousands of requests by domain name speculators attempting to register deleted names. The huge volume of requests received reduced customer service levels for all customers. Temporarily suspending the name deletion process will remove the motivation behind the spamming, thereby hopefully eliminating the customer service problems and also allowing time to develop an appropriate longer-term solution to the spamming problem. David H. Holtzman Sr VP Engineering, Network Solutions dholtz@internic.net
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, David H. Holtzman wrote:
Until further notice, Network Solutions will be temporarily suspending the process of deleting domain names for which payment has not been received. In recent weeks the InterNIC has been spammed repeatedly with tens of thousands of requests by domain name speculators attempting to register
What can be down about domainbrokers.com? Have a look at the files at http://www.domainbrokers.com/asp/. I just tried to register a domain for a customer, and found that it had been registered the day before by domainbrokers.com. I believe they have no intention to use the domain name. All they hope to do is sell it, probably for $1000. They appear to have setup no DNS records other than NS records for it. Companies like this that piss in the domain name registration pool should be banned from registering domains. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ________Finger jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______
...
What can be down about domainbrokers.com? Have a look at the files at
This is NOT an operational issue. The InterNIC's capricious modification of their SOPs is NOT operational. Pathetic whines about failing to register domains is NOT operational...
I believe they have no intention to use the domain name.
There is no requirement to use a domain name in any way, shape, or form.
Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
E
You wrote:
...
What can be down about domainbrokers.com? Have a look at the files at
This is NOT an operational issue. The InterNIC's capricious modification of their SOPs is NOT operational. Pathetic whines about failing to register domains is NOT operational...
And your point is? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592
In message <Pine.LNX.3.95.970709111719.600w-100000@inorganic5.fdt.net>, Jon Lew is writes:
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, David H. Holtzman wrote:
Until further notice, Network Solutions will be temporarily suspending the process of deleting domain names for which payment has not been received. In recent weeks the InterNIC has been spammed repeatedly with tens of thousands of requests by domain name speculators attempting to register
What can be down about domainbrokers.com? Have a look at the files at http://www.domainbrokers.com/asp/. I just tried to register a domain for a customer, and found that it had been registered the day before by domainbrokers.com. I believe they have no intention to use the domain name. All they hope to do is sell it, probably for $1000. They appear to have setup no DNS records other than NS records for it.
Companies like this that piss in the domain name registration pool should be banned from registering domains.
One step would be to prioritize domains which correspond to physical networks. If an organization is actually connected to the network they can get one prioritized registration for the domain name for their network. In the event of a conflict a domain registration for an actual network would take precedence to a psuedo-domain having only MX records and pointing to a web server on a provider's network. Dial accounts would not qualify since they are not permanently connected. There would still be conflicts, but this might make domain name speculation a thing of the past. Curtis
With regards the issue of prospectors trying to grab deleted domains, perhaps the InterNIC should use a similar policy to what the FCC uses for radio callsigns (amateur radio, at least): Callsigns which are abandoned due to change of callsign, death, or expiration of the license are unavailable for re-issue for two years. This allows for the previous owner (if not dead) to reclaim the callsign (or a relative of the deceased to do so). It also helps avoid identity confusion. Seems like the same rules would make sense in the domain name context, and would avoid problems where billing errors or other problems dealing with the Internic could result in loss of a domain name. -- ------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Senie dts@openroute.com OpenROUTE Networks, Inc. http://www.openroute.com/ 508-898-2800
I think this would be extremely unfair to legitimate domain registrants who are truly interested in a name (and willing to pay the registration fee) due to the random (and extreme) number of registrations that these domain speculators are registering. You are essentially putting a domain name that has never been paid for for two years, because some speculator registered it. This would give the speculators even more reason to extract the value of the name from someone who may want it - "If you don't pay me, its gone for two years....." Ed On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Daniel Senie wrote: :With regards the issue of prospectors trying to grab deleted domains, :perhaps the InterNIC should use a similar policy to what the FCC uses :for radio callsigns (amateur radio, at least): Callsigns which are :abandoned due to change of callsign, death, or expiration of the license :are unavailable for re-issue for two years. This allows for the previous :owner (if not dead) to reclaim the callsign (or a relative of the :deceased to do so). It also helps avoid identity confusion. : :Seems like the same rules would make sense in the domain name context, :and would avoid problems where billing errors or other problems dealing :with the Internic could result in loss of a domain name. : :--
Edward Fang wrote:
I think this would be extremely unfair to legitimate domain registrants who are truly interested in a name (and willing to pay the registration fee) due to the random (and extreme) number of registrations that these domain speculators are registering. You are essentially putting a domain name that has never been paid for for two years, because some speculator registered it. This would give the speculators even more reason to extract the value of the name from someone who may want it - "If you don't pay me, its gone for two years....."
Hmmm. Guess I was thinking it would only apply to domains that actually WERE already active, not ones that'd never gone live... My concern was that a company whose registration hadn't gotten paid for, whether due to error at the company or at the Internic, should not be a possible target of extortion by speculators making a grab for their domain name. Guess I have to agree with other folks that domains should be PAID for before they appear in the root servers. Too much abuse otherwise.
Ed
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Daniel Senie wrote:
:With regards the issue of prospectors trying to grab deleted domains, :perhaps the InterNIC should use a similar policy to what the FCC uses :for radio callsigns (amateur radio, at least): Callsigns which are :abandoned due to change of callsign, death, or expiration of the license :are unavailable for re-issue for two years. This allows for the previous :owner (if not dead) to reclaim the callsign (or a relative of the :deceased to do so). It also helps avoid identity confusion. : :Seems like the same rules would make sense in the domain name context, :and would avoid problems where billing errors or other problems dealing :with the Internic could result in loss of a domain name. : :--
-- ------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Senie dts@openroute.com OpenROUTE Networks, Inc. http://www.openroute.com/ 508-898-2800
On 09-Jul-97 Jon Lewis wrote:
What can be down about domainbrokers.com? Have a look at the files at
Companies like this that piss in the domain name registration pool should be banned from registering domains.
How about dealing with the situation in the same manner that some have been dealing with spammers? The offending registers should be cut off by their network providers. If NSI states that whoever.com is flooding them with registrations, and whoever.com is one of your customers, confront them. If they don't yeild, cut off their service. Abuse of the registrar on this magnitude could be considered a denial of service attack, or more likely, going against the self governing, self regulating ideas that the internet runs on. Regardless of your feelings about how NSI is running their service, this kind of behavior is not acceptable. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Potter Internet Alaska, Inc. gdead@alaska.net Grateful Admin InterNIC Handle: BGP4 ;-) PGP Public Key: http://www.alaska.net/~gdead/gdead.asc Key ID: 1024/F12AC0B1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Note: these views are mine, and don't reflect the views of my employer.
participants (8)
-
Bruce Potter -
Curtis Villamizar -
Daniel Senie -
David H. Holtzman -
Edward Fang -
Ehud Gavron -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Jon Lewis