Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)

    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Micheal Zurakov Advertising for Class Members for Register.com Lawsuit | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 20 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re:This is a really dumb lawsuit
    by jberryhill on Thursday August 21 2003, @03:18AM (#12103)
    User #3013 Info

    No Karl, this is not a case of someone "jumping in" and using it, as you put it.

    Even if you register a domain name in anticipation of future use, then you put in name servers that YOU CONTROL if you want to control the use of the domain name. Register.com was simply putting in default values for registrants who failed to specify their nameservers, because the RFC requires two nameservers.

    This is more like me tying my horse to a tree in your yard, and then complaining to you that your grass gave my horse indigestion.

    So, just to make sure I understand you, I am going to point the nameservers for all of my unused domain names to cavebear.com and your server can say "NXDOMAIN" 24/7. In the meantime, don't you dare put in any records for those domain names, or else you will be interfering with my exclusive use of my property. You just keep those servers powered up and saying nix. I will also encourage millions of other people to do this. Do we have a deal?

    Nobody said anything about domain names having to be used here. The question is what gave this plaintiff or his prospective class the right to tell register.com what THEY could do with THEIR property? If you read the appellate court opinion, the issue is about deprivation of "exclusive control", and several other causes of action were struck from the complaint. The fact is the registrants were never deprived of "control" - they always had the ability to point those domain names where they wanted. But, yes, I believe that Register.com had a right to exclusive control of its property. Why doesn't that argument cut both ways?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is a really dumb lawsuit by jberryhill
    Re:This is a really dumb lawsuit
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Thursday August 21 2003, @09:36AM (#12106)
    User #2810 Info
    Of course Register.com has exclusive right to its own property, but is the term laborzionist their property? Forgetting for the moment the question of whether domain names are property, what if HP [full disclosure, I used to work for them] registered agilent.com and for whatever reason (lack of technical clue, no wish to actually use it but just protect it as they prefer agilent.biz, etc.) then someone going to agilent.com might assume agilent is promoting register.com. I don't think that's right, but I suppose if register.com had it in their clickwrap agreement that would be different.

    A coupla other points, many other registrars do the same thing, and some are now doing it for domains which have expired but have not yet been dropped (something I suggested be done to wake up slothful domain owners away back when on the GA list, so I guess my concept of what is right is a little shaky). And while this is off topic, regarding HP registering various names in advance, that is an argument for a more private WHOIS that even mega-corps should get behind. For example, some may recall that much anticipated announcement about the Segway (that was going to revolutionize everything, uh huh). Well, some guessed its name in advance by checking domain registrations by certain parties. One can imagine various scenarios where this could be used to others' (even competitors') advantage. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is a really dumb lawsuit
    by KarlAuerbach on Thursday August 21 2003, @09:57AM (#12107)
    User #3243 Info | http://www.cavebear.com/
    Actually the customers were deprived of control.

    There are timeout values (TTLs) on all DNS records. When the customer decides to supply his/her own name servers, the register.com provided (or more likely the registry provided) values will hang around on the net in caches for at least until the timeout of those TTLs, perhaps longer. That, in turn, deprives the customer of full use of the name until those TTLs expire.

    (The typical NS TTL coming out of the NSI maintained .com zone is 48 hours.)

    Here's a scenerio that I've lived through:

    1. Disaster happens. (The county where I live been a declared disaster are several times over the last 15 years - and I was not responsible even once. ;-)

    2. Everybody is running around trying to get coordinated.

    3. Somebody registers a domain name for purposes of emergency coordination. But the servers aren't ready yet.

    4. Everybody pounds on the the servers, the NS records (the registry provided NS records) get cached.

    5. The real servers come live. But nobody can find 'em because the cached records have to time out. Even the 48 hour TTL in .com is a painfully long time during these kinds of situations.

    The RFC's require servers only when there is a delegation from a parent zone to a child zone.

    However, if someone comes along and registers a name but doesn't provide name servers, it is possible to simply leave the name out of the parent zone. Or, if one doesn't like a "no such domain" reply (which I believe would be just fine), the registry could install something like a TXT record that says something like "Dave's not here".

    What this disussion is indicating is that there needs to be at least three things:

        - Any registrar/registry provided NS records must have short TTLs.

        - Customers need a way to control the TTLs on the NS records pointing to their own servers. (Because short TTLS can lead to pounding on the TLD servers, this service should be reserved for special circumstances.)

        - There should be a greater recognition of a kind of limbo, but still valid, registration status: "registered but not in zone".

    (By-the-way, a tenant who is leaving a domain name can crank up the TTLs on the records in the soon to be gone zone - say on the "www" name - and leave a bit of havoc to time out [and these timeouts can be quite long] for the new tenant to endure.)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is a really dumb lawsuit
    by Anonymous on Sunday August 24 2003, @08:45PM (#12125)
    If a person rents an house, they can choose to reside in it or not. As long as the rent is paid, their choice not to reside in it does not mean the landlord has the right to squat in it without permission.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]

    Search ICANNWatch.org:

    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com