NEWS VeriSign is cementing its reputation as an internet villain according to several small domain-name sellers, who are taking the company, as well as regulator Icann, to court over the issue of waiting.
The US registrars have apparently been doing a brisk trade in snapping up and reselling expired domain names - but they believe that Icann (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and VeriSign's plan to create a 'waiting list' for domain names about to run out could threaten their business.
VeriSign counters that it is fed up to the back teeth of being mithered by requests for dead and dying domain names and is favouring a system whereby internet ambulance chasers pay a fee to be put on a waiting list and, when a domain expires, get their hands on it, with the web addresses given out on a first come, first served basis. The only thing is that if the domain name never expires, they're essentially paying money for nothing.
That's unlike the resellers who commonly don't charge their clients until they've secured the disputed domain.
While the registrars are saying their very livelihoods are at stake, domain-name owners and those with a hankering after a tasty new URL might relish the opportunity to cut out the middleman, with some businesses signing up several second-tier sellers to make sure they have a better chance of securing the domain name they want.
However, the eight domain-name registrars that are pursuing the case haven't been mincing their words when it comes to picking out the bad guys. They say in court filings that the two internet overlords are instituting "a scheme to dupe consumers into buying domain names the consumers will never be able to register and [creating] an unlawful and fraudulent protection racket".
The court filings also accuse the two companies of trying to scare insurance out of organisations, encouraging them to sign themselves up to the service before their competitors get the chance. "VeriSign could sell consumers the 'right' to be first in line to register microsoft.com knowing that the Microsoft Corporation will not permit their right to the domain name to become available. VeriSign can then sell the Microsoft Corporation insurance to protect its valuable domain name from ever becoming available to the [waiting-list] customer," said the filings.
The suit, announced last week in Los Angeles, is the second in as many days for VeriSign and Icann. VeriSign took the non-profit organisation to court, claiming that Icann unlawfully prevented it from adding new features to the domain-name database it has a contract to run - among them, the bile-attracting Site Finder, as well as the waiting-list service.
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Its about time someones goes after Verisign. I was trying to transfer my domain name to another company and the blocked the transaction saying there wasn't enough time. Then it took almost 3 months before they released it. Then I was able to re-register it, at a quarter of the cost they wanted.
2. Jarrod Tindall
I think the reselling of domain name should be banned altogether. It's the internet equivilant of scalping tickets. These guys will watch for new buisinesses to open up, register all the domain names that relate to the business for next to nothing, and then ransom the domain name for tens of thousands of dollars. This suit is like scalpers suing ticket sellers for not allowing them to use homeless people to buy tickets to circumvent limits.
3. Ian Savell
The unprecedented rate of evolution of the Internet outstrips the ability of society to democratically legislate on it. At present we have a largely functional system.
The only way it can be kept functional is for everyone to accept that the economic benefits of the basic system far outweigh any windfall gains from manipulating it.
The internet must be ruled by a benevolent dictatorship, applying force only when necessary but applying it quickly. Neither giving in to every financial interest that comes along, nor doing nothing until a majority user view can (too late) be established.
4. anonymous
As far as I know one doesn'thave to keep renewing one's *company* name; so why one's web address? If web addresses were *purchased* instead of leased/rented, this whole problem would go away. If a company goes bust, its name can be bought; the same couls apply to web addresses.