Network Solutions- how are they allowed...?

[Keith]

Why does icann and the domaining community put up with theft by registrars? At Network Solutions when domains enter client hold, they never get released. The registrar warehouses these types for years on end. Here’s a few examples-

Xem.com expired 2007
Unmanned.com expired 2003

Please pay close attention to Unmanned. I lodged a complaint with icann because the expiration was 2003 and status was client hold. Shortly thereafter the expiration date changed but whois info and client hold status remained unchanged.

@jberryhill can you shed light on this? This type of practice is a huge negative for the industry and believe me, there are tons of valuable domains in the same boat.

 

[jberryhill]

Why does icann and the domaining community put up with theft by registrars?

Okay, um, I'm not seeing in your post where someone has had something stolen from them.

What is it that you are calling "theft" here?

Domains can end up in hold status for a long time, for a variety of reasons. For example, sometimes Network Solutions will receive notice that a company is in bankruptcy or other litigation involving a domain name, so the name goes on litigation lock. Then, for whatever reason, Netsol is not later informed of the outcome, so the name stays in limbo.

If you are talking about domain registrars simply holding on to expired names for their own account, there is no rule against that, and it certainly is not "theft".

So, first off, what has been taken from whom, which you are calling "theft"?

 

[Platinums]

netsol = ICANN = godaddy

 

[Keith]

Okay, um, I'm not seeing in your post where someone has had something stolen from them.

What is it that you are calling "theft" here?

Domains can end up in hold status for a long time, for a variety of reasons. For example, sometimes Network Solutions will receive notice that a company is in bankruptcy or other litigation involving a domain name, so the name goes on litigation lock. Then, for whatever reason, Netsol is not later informed of the outcome, so the name stays in limbo.

If you are talking about domain registrars simply holding on to expired names for their own account, there is no rule against that, and it certainly is not "theft".

So, first off, what has been taken from whom, which you are calling "theft"?

Enter the Wild West where one registrar treats domains completely different while in the same icann status. The lack of a uniformed rule is a problem...

GoDaddy for example, releases domains with client hold status at date of expiration. I’ve monitored several and this is always the case. At NS they will never release a domain at expiration, while in client hold. I’ll give a great example. Years ago I filed a false Whois form for the domain payload.com. Subsequent to my filing the domain was placed in client hold. The domain continued to be renewed for years while remaining in client hold. Then one day, a completely different company bearing the “payload” TM claimed the domain and NS gave way.

Why can registrars hold other people’s property? You said they aren’t required to let go of expired domains. Those domains don’t belong to them and they have no financial stake at the point of acquisition.

I lease a car that is registered with the state. If I don’t pay the lease does the state get to keep the car? The registrars aren’t supposed to take possession of suspect inventory, indefinitely. They merely facilitate domain holdings on behalf of their user base.

 

[jberryhill]

Why can registrars hold other people’s property? You said they aren’t required to let go of expired domains. Those domains don’t belong to them and they have no financial stake at the point of acquisition.

They don't belong to you either, so I don't where you are getting "theft" from.

I lease a car that is registered with the state.

...and if you don't pay the lease, the repo man comes and takes it back. What, if anything, the lienholder decides to do with it at that point is up to them. The parties in your car leasing analogy don't match up, and it's not really an applicable analogy in the first place.

Here's the relevant provision of the ICANN registrar accreditation agreement:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en

3.7.9 Registrar shall abide by any Consensus Policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.

Now, here's the funny thing. That has been in every version of the registrar accreditation agreement for 18 years. But ICANN has never adopted a Consensus Policy on the subject.

Years ago I filed a false Whois form for the domain payload.com.

How many years ago?

I just took a look back through the WHOIS history, and it looks like it was long registered to Payload Systems Inc., which was then bought by the Aurora Flight Systems division of Boeing.

If the gripe is that registrars are hanging onto expired domains, one can certainly debate whether that is something they should or shouldn't do, but absent a policy on the topic, that's what they do. After the domain name expires, the contract with the registrant is terminated, and the registrar doesn't somehow owe it to you to make the domain name available.

 

[Keith]

How many years ago?

I just took a look back through the WHOIS history, and it looks like it was long registered to Payload Systems Inc., which was then bought by the Aurora Flight Systems division of Boeing.

If the gripe is that registrars are hanging onto expired domains, one can certainly debate whether that is something they should or shouldn't do, but absent a policy on the topic, that's what they do. After the domain name expires, the contract with the registrant is terminated, and the registrar doesn't somehow owe it to you to make the domain name available.

2013 was when the domain went into client hold. It remained that way for years, despite being expired. It then went to a company who was operating on payload.org and had no affiliation with the previous owner. Unmanned.com has been expired since 2003 and also in client hold.

What gives a registrar the right to shelf a domain that is expired? Not to mention that the registrar hasn’t paid for it. I want to keep my domains after they expire but don’t have that right. Somehow it’s fine for a registrar to keep it because they offer a service?

 

[Domains - Wanted]

...What gives a registrar the right to shelf a domain that is expired?

As @jberryhill has already pointed out: the lack of any Consensus Policy! Interesting tidbit, that!

Not to mention that the registrar hasn’t paid for it.

I'm pretty sure they are charged respective annual fees by the registry. That is unless "client hold" status absolves them of those dues...?

I want to keep my domains after they expire but don’t have that right.

But you do have that right! All you need to do is pay the renewal fee and you keep the domain

 

[jberryhill]

What gives a registrar the right to shelf a domain that is expired?

If the registry keeps getting paid, and ICANN keeps getting their $.25, then "what gives them the right" is that "there is no rule against it" (A).

Some better questions might be:

1. Who is it harming?

2. In what way are they benefiting?

Now, on #1, you might say, "Anyone who wants to register the name." But there is no generally recognized harm in not being able to have something you want. There are lots of things I want, but I can't get. Where it matters is in situations if you are being denied something you have a right to have. This ain't that.

On #2, there is no immediate or particular benefit to them, aside from maybe some incidental parking revenue. They could be saving it for auction or sale at some later date, but they do that with expired domains anyway, so there isn't any particular advantage which I see them gaining in this situation.

So, tell me what I'm missing. Someone has something you want, and you can't get it. A guy down the street from me is a used car dealer. The car he drives around is nicer than most of the ones on his lot. He won't sell me that car. What gives him the right to do that? He's a car dealer. If I ask him to sell me his car, he should sell it to me! Well, he's not somehow banned from owning cars himself. Likewise, there's no rule - expressly no rule - which forbids registrars from holding domain names for themselves.

I've seen a lot of domains stuck in limbo for long periods of time, and it's not clear what the reasons might be in different instances. If the names are used as nameservers for other domains, there are some issues associated with that; legal issues can have them hung up for years; and so on.

(A) that's something of an oversimplification, but the end result is the same. There are a lot of rules to the effect of "unless the registrant agrees otherwise" and in which that agreement is posted in the terms of registration. So, some of the "rules" are simply "default practices".

 

[jberryhill]

-----
Just adding another observation here is that people say "what gives them the right to do that?" all of the time about domainers. There are still plenty of people who believe there is something wrong with registering a lot of domain names and selling them.