471–480 of 561 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they haven’t been sued enough yet?
ICANN should not approve such an obviously fraudulent move even without anyone being sued. Neither should Verisign even consider that they'll be able to get away with it. If you need to sue for this something else is already very wrong with the system.
Is it corrupt? Yes. Is there a factor making corruption inevitable? Yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's one less core problem: those who just bought/renewed their domain e.g. yesterday are fucked out of both their money and forced to migrate sooner than they could have reasonably planned for. People's who registrations expire and they are unable to renew is a very different level of unfairness and inconvenience. In either case, the security concern should be directly addressed.
Well, I'm guessing that Verisign will throw people a bone in terms of refunds just to avoid getting repeatedly hit with justifiably spiteful lawsuits that (I hope) would be trivially easy for customers to win. That will cost them very little in terms of cash, as I doubt that many people register that many years ahead, plus in terms of accounting, they won't have accrued that revenue anyway so it wouldn't even hurt th…
I freaked out for a second because I've owned `dvt.name` for like 15 years. `.name` is not getting terminated, so it's important to be precise here. The third-level x.y.name (where you're the `x`) is getting terminated, and the respective `y.name` domains are going to be released. Still a crappy thing for people, but it does not affect owned second-level domains.
There should be a conflict resolution to gracefully degrade the third level to 2nd level when there is no competing name on the second level. But I didn't think about the 1st level competitors. There'd still need a mechanism to resolve that... 1. First come first serve? (e.g. whoever registered a y.name first, whether x is bob or sue is determined by the earliest registrant on record) 2. Lottery/random selection? 3.…
I had/have a .net.nz and someone else owned the .co.nz. I went through the conflict resolution process and ended up being able to register the .nz.
Not sure if or how other registrars manage this sort of thing, but I thought the way NZ's Domain Name Commission handled things was pretty fair and transparent.
[1] https://dnc.org.nz/tools-and-services/how-do-i-2/register-a-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Outside of the context of ccTLDs and city.state.gov etc, I struggle to think of examples 3LD+ domains where they are owned and operated by completely different concerns than the parent. If at some point you could just register your own mysite.state.gov domains willy nilly that's probably before my initial time online around 2000. Another poster raised the point of hosting services which is valid. But at present outsi…
Many services today support vanity domains - Google even has special support for it: https://publicsuffix.org/list/public_suffix_list.dat
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hello sysadmin. Good luck navigating the internet. What you should know, and what your browser does know and automatically applies cookie policy and colouring your URL bar, is the Public Suffix List: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Suffix_List It will let you know that, for example, one does not need to own .co.uk to own the subdomain foo.co.uk.
I appreciate this, and yeah the government/education ones slipped my mind, but I stand by the fact that the reason a list needs to be kept in the first place is because this is the edge case and not the norm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prior to reading the OP blog post, I had never looked into the particular rules that .name has. To me, prior to knowing how it works, I would have assumed that either a) john.doe.name would be a subdomain that someone who was just starting out had gotten for free supported by ads. Similar to having johndoe.freewebs.com back in the day. Not something most people would use for anything professional. or, b) doe.name was…
>I would not have guessed that .name 3LDs worked the way that it did if I hadn’t read about it. The situation in the OP is exactly what you just put as A)
Go to whois.nic.name and search for neil.fraser.name, and you will find whois information for that registration. It is properly paid for and registered with Verisign. I use the same registrar, 007Names, for my own .name 3LD.
What process did you use to decide this was not the case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They're insane and should not be in charge. I remember back when we had to write mechanize scripts to drive a browser through the renewal process, because if you had dozens, hundreds, or thousands of domains there was no nonmanual way, especially if you wanted extended verification or something silly like that. So what I'm saying is, agreed and that has always been true.
That actually sounds like a good thing. Why are you hording hundreds or thousands of domains?
Sadly neither our world not its legal system is built on common sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That actually sounds like a good thing. Why are you hording hundreds or thousands of domains?
I was working for a company that had hundreds and thousands of domains. It was a fortune 50 company, and they had a policy generally against wildcard domains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they want to avoid the ambiguity between john.doe.name versus john-doe.name , and I assume they prefer the latter scheme because it probably sells better. Nevertheless, discontinuing existing domains is disgraceful.
Was it even possible to register just a second level .name domain name? It sounds like it wasn't, so therefore no one would be using john-doe.name and there'd be no ambiguity.
I have the .name zone file and can confirm that no records for baxter.name appear therein, so it is not reserved only because a 3LD registration has ever taken place, it is reserved proactively just in case someone with that surname might want to register a 3LD under it.