Belated Happy New Year to you. I regret I wasn’t able to post anything prior because my blog was down that time. (and what a way to end 2008 and start 2009…)
This is somewhat late. But I thought I’d post on some domain stories that arguably grabbed a lot of attention last year, and what’s happened since then.
I won’t necessarily focus on, say, stories that involved mainly those familiar with the domain business. Those I’m writing about here affected a variety of people from all walks of life who use the ‘Net, especially if they’re looking to register their own domain name.
Without further delay, let’s start with the first story that I think started 2008 with a rather big bang:
1. Network Solutions Registers Domains Searched But Not Taken.
I was honestly surprised when I first heard about this, and what a way to start 2008 back then. Domain registrar Network Solutions was reported to register domain names searched in their site, but weren’t taken on the spot.
Some of Network Solutions’ people eventually said they enacted that practice to supposedly protect their customers’ registrations from being taken by domain tasters. Maybe the word “prospects” might be more accurate since those users weren’t exactly paying Network Solutions anything just yet, but many felt like they were being “forced” to pay their high fees or wait the 5-days until they’re dropped.
Rather naturally, it created a lot of controversy and uproar. Network Solutions was eventually sued for it, though I haven’t been able to find any update on that case so far.
On the other hand, it seems Network Solutions has finally stopped doing it. All the domain names I’ve searched on their site the past 2-3 weeks before 2009 were not registered soon after, and they also took off their warning notice from their main site.
Their ex-CEO Champ Mitchell was quoted in Infoworld that they’d stop it if ICANN did something about domain tasting. I guess they did as they said when ICANN finally enacted a measure to address this, which I’ll get to in a while.
Speaking of domain tasting, that’s the next subject:
2. Domain Tasting, Front Running, etc. Addressed
It’s probably the number one that’s gotten a lot of people talking after Network Solutions’ action above: people search for a domain name, saw it’s available, didn’t take it on the spot, then find it’s registered by someone either within the same registrar they searched previously or elsewhere. Although many of the domain names were eventually released within 120 hours of their registration, it caused many people to believe some conspiracy was taking place.
This practice of registering a domain name (especially a .com) within 120 hours-5 days to “taste” whatever traffic it had before letting it go was eventually labeled “domain tasting”. It was actually much talked about the past few years, but 2008 saw the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) finally take concrete action on it.
As an FYI, registrars pay ICANN a $0.20 fee for registering .com domain names, though they can get that back if they delete their .com registration within that same 120-hour/five-day add/grace period. ICANN later enacted a measure to make that fee nonrefundable upon reaching a certain threshold in an attempt to fix that.
ICANN announced in November 2008 an initial result showing that domain registrations went down by 84%. Another announcement was made following this.
If this keeps up, then it appears that’ll finally help solve this problem. I doubt domain tasting will be completely eliminated, but it might lessen that from happening.
Just the same, though, just be ready to register the domain name on the spot the moment you see it’s available. I’ve seen a few complaints once in a while of this sort of thing still happening, but they don’t seem as often as I’ve noticed them to be back then.
Domain tasting wasn’t the only problem plaguing users that time, though. While it wasn’t probably that big a deal, I’ve blogged that this happen more often last year than before:
3. More Registrar Phishing Attacks
I’ve actually blogged about phishing a bit more on 2007. But I also mentioned it happened especially to domain registrars eNom and Network Solutions.
Fortunately eNom and Network Solutions quickly addressed them on their own. I hadn’t seen any online reports or complaints about it, so hopefully no one was negatively affected by it.
Also speaking of phishing, that was the subject of a bill that some parties tried to lobby into law:
4. The Snowe Bill
Another topic that made its way into online news was the Snowe Bill. Its sponsors mainly said the bill was to address phishing, but it included some provisions which potentially posed a threat to domain registrants.
Probably the main concern about the bill that time was it could’ve allowed non-trademark holders to go after those whose domain names matched their trade names. A lot of people eventually complained about the bill.
As of this post, the bill has not gone through. One of its principal sponsors, Sen. Ted Stevens, has been indicted.
However, some people speculate the bill’s proponents will try again. I’ll try to keep an eye on it and blog about it again if that happens, just so people will be made aware.
While this next one might not be so “important”, how it was handled created enough controversy to warrant attention. Namely:
5. The Kentucky Gambling Domains Seizure
I also posted before about the U.S. state (or commonwealth) of Kentucky having filed and secured a court order to seize domain names supposedly violating a Kentucky gambling law or so. One thing that made this bothersome was none of their owners/registrants were notified of such an action, denying them a chance to be heard and dispute what the Kentucky government did.
One thing that was argued is it can possibly allow parties in other countries to file their own cases for their own reasons and try enforcing it on registrars outside their jurisdiction or “reach”. Imagine someone from Timbuktu get a court order to transfer your domain name from you for violating some law in their country, and you’re not even made aware of it.
Certain groups eventually represented those affected by this civil action. Interestingly, I read it was the Kentucky Governor and not the state’s attorney general who started the whole thing, the latter reported in some places as having not involved in any way with it.
I blogged that domain registrar eNom gave the domain names away soon after getting the court order. Go Daddy currently holds the domain names under their respective registrants, though its issuing some certificate to the Kentucky court also arguably put those registrants at risk.
TheDomains last reported the Kentucky Appeals court heard arguments from both sides on this issue. It remains to be seen how this will go, but it’s hoped this suit won’t prosper.
There’s more to talk about, of course. But those I mentioned here are among those that got lots of attention, and we’ll certainly see more this year.
Here’s to hoping 2009 will be a better year, and to less headaches.
Check Out These Other Posts:
Much Talked-About Domain Topics 2008
This is somewhat late. But I thought I’d post on some domain stories that arguably grabbed a lot of attention last year, and what’s happened since then.
I won’t necessarily focus on, say, stories that involved mainly those familiar with the domain business. Those I’m writing about here affected a variety of people from all walks of life who use the ‘Net, especially if they’re looking to register their own domain name.
Without further delay, let’s start with the first story that I think started 2008 with a rather big bang:
1. Network Solutions Registers Domains Searched But Not Taken.
I was honestly surprised when I first heard about this, and what a way to start 2008 back then. Domain registrar Network Solutions was reported to register domain names searched in their site, but weren’t taken on the spot.
Some of Network Solutions’ people eventually said they enacted that practice to supposedly protect their customers’ registrations from being taken by domain tasters. Maybe the word “prospects” might be more accurate since those users weren’t exactly paying Network Solutions anything just yet, but many felt like they were being “forced” to pay their high fees or wait the 5-days until they’re dropped.
Rather naturally, it created a lot of controversy and uproar. Network Solutions was eventually sued for it, though I haven’t been able to find any update on that case so far.
On the other hand, it seems Network Solutions has finally stopped doing it. All the domain names I’ve searched on their site the past 2-3 weeks before 2009 were not registered soon after, and they also took off their warning notice from their main site.
Their ex-CEO Champ Mitchell was quoted in Infoworld that they’d stop it if ICANN did something about domain tasting. I guess they did as they said when ICANN finally enacted a measure to address this, which I’ll get to in a while.
Speaking of domain tasting, that’s the next subject:
2. Domain Tasting, Front Running, etc. Addressed
It’s probably the number one that’s gotten a lot of people talking after Network Solutions’ action above: people search for a domain name, saw it’s available, didn’t take it on the spot, then find it’s registered by someone either within the same registrar they searched previously or elsewhere. Although many of the domain names were eventually released within 120 hours of their registration, it caused many people to believe some conspiracy was taking place.
This practice of registering a domain name (especially a .com) within 120 hours-5 days to “taste” whatever traffic it had before letting it go was eventually labeled “domain tasting”. It was actually much talked about the past few years, but 2008 saw the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) finally take concrete action on it.
As an FYI, registrars pay ICANN a $0.20 fee for registering .com domain names, though they can get that back if they delete their .com registration within that same 120-hour/five-day add/grace period. ICANN later enacted a measure to make that fee nonrefundable upon reaching a certain threshold in an attempt to fix that.
ICANN announced in November 2008 an initial result showing that domain registrations went down by 84%. Another announcement was made following this.
If this keeps up, then it appears that’ll finally help solve this problem. I doubt domain tasting will be completely eliminated, but it might lessen that from happening.
Just the same, though, just be ready to register the domain name on the spot the moment you see it’s available. I’ve seen a few complaints once in a while of this sort of thing still happening, but they don’t seem as often as I’ve noticed them to be back then.
Domain tasting wasn’t the only problem plaguing users that time, though. While it wasn’t probably that big a deal, I’ve blogged that this happen more often last year than before:
3. More Registrar Phishing Attacks
I’ve actually blogged about phishing a bit more on 2007. But I also mentioned it happened especially to domain registrars eNom and Network Solutions.
Fortunately eNom and Network Solutions quickly addressed them on their own. I hadn’t seen any online reports or complaints about it, so hopefully no one was negatively affected by it.
Also speaking of phishing, that was the subject of a bill that some parties tried to lobby into law:
4. The Snowe Bill
Another topic that made its way into online news was the Snowe Bill. Its sponsors mainly said the bill was to address phishing, but it included some provisions which potentially posed a threat to domain registrants.
Probably the main concern about the bill that time was it could’ve allowed non-trademark holders to go after those whose domain names matched their trade names. A lot of people eventually complained about the bill.
As of this post, the bill has not gone through. One of its principal sponsors, Sen. Ted Stevens, has been indicted.
However, some people speculate the bill’s proponents will try again. I’ll try to keep an eye on it and blog about it again if that happens, just so people will be made aware.
While this next one might not be so “important”, how it was handled created enough controversy to warrant attention. Namely:
5. The Kentucky Gambling Domains Seizure
I also posted before about the U.S. state (or commonwealth) of Kentucky having filed and secured a court order to seize domain names supposedly violating a Kentucky gambling law or so. One thing that made this bothersome was none of their owners/registrants were notified of such an action, denying them a chance to be heard and dispute what the Kentucky government did.
One thing that was argued is it can possibly allow parties in other countries to file their own cases for their own reasons and try enforcing it on registrars outside their jurisdiction or “reach”. Imagine someone from Timbuktu get a court order to transfer your domain name from you for violating some law in their country, and you’re not even made aware of it.
Certain groups eventually represented those affected by this civil action. Interestingly, I read it was the Kentucky Governor and not the state’s attorney general who started the whole thing, the latter reported in some places as having not involved in any way with it.
I blogged that domain registrar eNom gave the domain names away soon after getting the court order. Go Daddy currently holds the domain names under their respective registrants, though its issuing some certificate to the Kentucky court also arguably put those registrants at risk.
TheDomains last reported the Kentucky Appeals court heard arguments from both sides on this issue. It remains to be seen how this will go, but it’s hoped this suit won’t prosper.
There’s more to talk about, of course. But those I mentioned here are among those that got lots of attention, and we’ll certainly see more this year.
Here’s to hoping 2009 will be a better year, and to less headaches.
Check Out These Other Posts: