RE: [registrars] sitefinder case in point

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I might as well tell my techs to change the behaviour of our script that
puts domains on hold. Instead of removing it from the zone file - I
might as well as point it to my own nameservers and put MY page on it
which is more explanatory than that of verisign

bhavin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Stahura
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:09 AM
> To: Registrars
> Subject: [registrars] sitefinder case in point
> 
> 
> This note is to illustrate one problem for registrars with 
> Verisign's wildcard.
> 
> The wildcard changes the result of the "registrar hold" RRP command.
> 
> VLCN (a famous and very large company's name) initiated a 
> dispute over "xVLCN.com" resulting in eNom placing the name 
> on registrar hold. 
> This rendered the domain inactive as it took it out of the 
> .com zone file.
> 
> Today we received this note from VLCN's legal council:
> 
> "Thank you for your prompt response to our letter concerning the 
> domain name xVLCN.com.  You indicated that you had  placed 
> the domain under "Register Hold" to prevent the domain name from 
> resolving to an IP number.  Today, if you type in the URL you 
> are brought to a page saying there is no website at the address.  
> However, the URL resolves to an interactive web page  allowing 
> Internet users to search the web.  
> Please advise as to whether this page will be taken down as well."
> 
> We've explained to VLCN's attorneys that Verisign is the 
> cause of their problem and have asked VLCN to voice their 
> objection to Verisign.
> 
> How many names were (are?) on hold but now resolve?
> I would guess that many of us will be having to deal 
> with this many times over, at no small cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>