Re: [registrars] Verisign ownes every name that does not exist - millions for free!

[Mike Lampson <lampson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This service is live now.  Here is where undefined domains resolve:

http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?host=mikelampson1234567.com

Regards,

_Mike

On 9/15/03 9:15 PM, Jim Archer (jarcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:

> Hi Paul...
> 
> My guess is that their intent is primarily to get paid for clicks and such.
> At one time, I had a customer who used to register "typo" domains.  We are
> all familiar with that concept, but for those reading this who are not, he
> might register something like wwwIbm.com or wwwSunmicrosystems.com and so
> on.  Many companies would threaten to sue him and send him cease orders and
> such, usually based upon trademark infringement claims.  I wonder if these
> same companies are going to be any happier if Verisign is doing it?
> 
> Also, it seems that if a name resolves, then it should be registered.  Or,
> if it resolves, then it is registered. Or maybe it is kind of registered.
> Half registered? In this case, it is registered with no registrar, no whois
> data and no one paying for it.
> 
> I do know that if we delete too many names during the 5 day grace period
> that follows registration, we get a nasty note from Verisign telling us we
> are not supposed to do that so much.  So they can't really say that the
> name is instantly registered then deleted each time it resolves.
> 
> As you said, never a dull day...
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> --On Monday, September 15, 2003 9:01 PM -0400 Paul Goldstone
> <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Jim and all,
>> 
>> I don't believe that unresolved domain traffic belongs to Verisign, any
>> more than 404 file not found pages belong to them.  They own
>> *.verisign.com, not *.com
>> 
>> Besides, if they get this to pass, are they acting as Registry, Registrar,
>> both, or neither?  Only the Registry can capture unresolved traffic so it
>> must be the Registry.  If that's the case, they should only be permitted
>> to solicit the Registry and/or accredited Registrar services for com and
>> net, showing no favour to any one individual Registrar (such as Network
>> Solutions).  I'm not sure if that's their intention:
>> 
>> http://www.crmassist.com/news/dispnews.asp?i=100935&t=99
>> "VeriSign spokesman Brian O'Shaughnessy confirmed that the company was
>> testing a system to redirect bad Internet addresses to its own search
>> page, but he said no final decision has been made on whether to implement
>> such a program."
>> 
>> Never a dull day...
>> 
>> Paul Goldstone
>> Domain-it!, Inc.
>> www.domainit.com
>> 
>> 
>> At 08:10 PM 9/15/2003 -0400, Jim Archer wrote:
>>> Clever Verisign.  I suppose you could only do this if you are the
>>> monopoly  that controls the root zone, although I have not figured out
>>> exactly how  they do it yet.  I'm sure it will be clear as soon as we
>>> look into it.
>>> 
>>> But really, Verisign is essentially using every name that does not
>>> exist,  thereby making it exist, kind of sort of.  Can they do this?  I
>>> would have  thought that even Verisign has to pay for their domain
>>> names.  With this  thing in place, they are essentially getting millions
>>> of domains for free.
>>> 
>>> And, since many unsophisticated users often use a web browser to see if
>>> a  domain is available, NSI gets a huge advantage if Verisign decides to
>>> link  them to register the domain.
>>> 
>>> I sure wish that my company could do this.  I'll bet everyone here does.
>>> 
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A996-2003Sep12?language=printer
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Internet-Typos.html
>>> 
>>> *************************
>>> James W. Archer
>>> CEO
>>> http://www.RegistrationTek.com
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> *************************
> James W. Archer
> CEO
> http://www.RegistrationTek.com
> 
>