Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As Many as 5K .Com’s Taken Away by Sealed Court Order by Verisign

thedomains.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 74 posts

Re: As Many as 5K .Com’s Taken Away by Sealed Court Order by Verisign

#51

Post by jacquesm »

cssandjs wrote: post #48

Well that can't be good - my "name" on the web can be snatched out from under my feet?

There are now several 'known' ways in which this can happen, all of them seem to involve a US court at some point in time so if you're running a legitimate business on a .com and you acquired the domain as first registrant from a registrar.

If you acquired that domain through the 'aftermarket', especially if it had lapsed we now know that if that entity should ever go bankrupt there is a potential problem.

And even in that case I assume you could object against this in some way (though the story does not detail any of that so far, we'll have to wait to see how it all plays out).

I'll be following this quite closely, to say that I'm surprised here is an understatement.

There is even potential for a chain of bankruptcies causing repeated clawback of the same domain!

Re: As Many as 5K .Com’s Taken Away by Sealed Court Order by Verisign

#52

Post by wpietri »

joelrunyon wrote: post #14
gergles wrote: post #9

While this is obviously a perversion of justice, I'm not shedding many tears over shady domain landgrabbers losing their 'property'. It's unfortunate (and clearly shouldn't have been filed under seal) but the histrionic comments on anigbrowl's link about how this is going to kill the domain squatting 'business' just make me think "good."

Given that we don't even know why they were seized (or how many were seized by each person), it seems like you have an amazing hostility towards domainers in general. What makes you so mad towards them?

They are parasites. They add nothing to the system.

In some cases, speculators provide actual value. E.g., they prove or maintain the assets that they speculate on. In others, as with financial speculators, they provide liquidity to the market.

Neither is true for domain speculators. They get paid for making the world worse.

Re: As Many as 5K .Com’s Taken Away by Sealed Court Order by Verisign

#53

Post by wpietri »

joelrunyon wrote: post #49
michaelt wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a shopping mall car park where it costs $0.20 a day to park. Except you can't park anywhere near the door, because people turn up at the start of the day, park their cars across three prime spaces, and offer to sell them - for $20. You'd have to be a big fan of the coase theorem to enjoy paying $20 for a $0.20 parking space, when the only thing the seller has done to add value is get in your way.

Or - if you simply look at it as real estate - they bought that land when the supermarket was being built (and no one else thought it was valuable). In this space - it's akin much more to having parking spaces near a sporting event or concert. In which case - there's lot of happy people willing to pay $20 for the privilege of parking. Also - you should know that pricing goods based on "what they cost" isn't the prope…

No, the mall bought the land and made the parking spaces. They are merely squatting on parking spaces that other people created. And the reason those parking spaces were created was to enable actual, productive business to take place, not to feed parasites.

Re: As Many as 5K .Com’s Taken Away by Sealed Court Order by Verisign

#54

Post by wpietri »

ddod wrote: post #11
gergles wrote: post #9

While this is obviously a perversion of justice, I'm not shedding many tears over shady domain landgrabbers losing their 'property'. It's unfortunate (and clearly shouldn't have been filed under seal) but the histrionic comments on anigbrowl's link about how this is going to kill the domain squatting 'business' just make me think "good."

Let's not conflate the implications of this with prejudices against the victims. If a startup had snagged one of these domains and had built a community or SEO with it, could you imagine that being taken away from them without any sort of due process?

What's to say that would have happened?

The sealed bit is weird, but bankruptcy judges are awfully sensitive to economic value. I'd be surprised if they would do something like that.

Of course, if the domain were seized in that case, due process would still be available. The startup's lawyer would immediately file with the judge in question asking for control to be temporarily restored to the startup while the legal stuff plays out.

Re: As Many as 5K .Com’s Taken Away by Sealed Court Order by Verisign

#55

Post by joelrunyon »

wpietri wrote: post #53
joelrunyon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or - if you simply look at it as real estate - they bought that land when the supermarket was being built (and no one else thought it was valuable). In this space - it's akin much more to having parking spaces near a sporting event or concert. In which case - there's lot of happy people willing to pay $20 for the privilege of parking. Also - you should know that pricing goods based on "what they cost" isn't the prope…

No, the mall bought the land and made the parking spaces. They are merely squatting on parking spaces that other people created. And the reason those parking spaces were created was to enable actual, productive business to take place, not to feed parasites.

Technically - the land was free. You're looking more at a hypothetical that's similar to settling new land.

Also - calm down. There are businesses that are way worse than domainers.

Re: As Many as 5K .Com’s Taken Away by Sealed Court Order by Verisign

#57

Post by grizzles »

icebraining wrote: post #44
etherealG wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I particularly like this argument. It's so full of meaning.

It's not an argument. It's a request for one. What's the argument for condemning the GTLD holder just because he doesn't want to sell a particular domain?

The argument is that there's only one Sunrise phase. If Demand Media decide to sell it later to say a competitor of mine, I'm out of luck now aren't I? What's the point then of even having a Sunrise phase? It's just smoke and mirrors.

Re: As Many as 5K .Com’s Taken Away by Sealed Court Order by Verisign

#58

Post by bhartzer »

grizzles wrote: post #24

Everything to do with the DNS system is so corrupt and shady. Half the domains dropping in the new GTLD process are "unavailable", "registered", etc. We tried to get an exact trademark for one of our companies in the new GTLD system during the Sunrise phase only to be told by Gandi that the new GTLD owner rejected it. We pushed it pretty hard and had a back and forth with Gandi's CEO who was pretty much on our side b…

The new gtlds have nothing to do with this. Your tm issue is something different than 5k domains being taken.

Re: As Many as 5K .Com’s Taken Away by Sealed Court Order by Verisign

#59

Post by bhartzer »

fleitz wrote: post #21
sadfaceunread wrote: post #5

I'll be following this case. I don't understand why this would be filed under seal. I'd enjoy some legal experts comments on the matter.

It's really difficult for anyone to speculate on a sealed court order. Probably a deal gone bad and the person convinced a judge that if it went through normal channels the persons owning the domains would liquidate them. That or the transfer was deemed illegal in the first place. A quick google for Robert Olea reveals he is a domain broker.

I know Bob personally, and he is a domain broker. I believe he is just the one holding these domains until the last sauce can be resolved.

Re: As Many as 5K .Com’s Taken Away by Sealed Court Order by Verisign

#60

Post by teacup50 »

icebraining wrote: post #44
etherealG wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I particularly like this argument. It's so full of meaning.

It's not an argument. It's a request for one. What's the argument for condemning the GTLD holder just because he doesn't want to sell a particular domain?

We have traditionally held DNS administrators to a higher standard of behavior in exchange for our granting them the rights and responsibilities of administering a portion of the DNS system -- specifically, we've required that they engage in reasonable, non-discriminatory practices.

DNS is not private land; it's a system in which the existence of a TLD is dependent on the widespread agreement to grant registrar(s) the right to administer it. Movement away from reasonable and non-discriminatory behavior is an attempt to secure undue control over a system that exists only because of the participation of the internet community at large.

Of course, given the massive growth in internet consumers and the general impossibility of their all being educated (much less having a voice in these sorts of decision), this sort of abusive behavior is quickly becoming par for the course on today's internet.

Post reply on HN