Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands(en.mercopress.com) |
Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands(en.mercopress.com) |
They "make it up in volume" by giving you an incentive to keep your entire domain portfolio together, even when you really only care about MarkMonitor levels of care for a subset of them.
Advanced features like registry lock and local presence are also affordable-but-not-cheap.
(A lot of their more proactive brand and trademark management has been spun off to other divisions of Clarivate who acquired them some years ago.)
Maybe they'll try to snap it up now that it's attracting a little attention but they probably just don't really care about it...
I'm confused. It seems to me that this article just through some lines in it without further explanation.
Similar to what MSFT did to the guy who totally legally registered mikerowesoft.com
From cnet: https://www.cnet.com/news/mikerowesoft-settles-for-an-xbox/
He did an AMA on reddit 11 years ago; he's apparently a full time poker player now. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ajsih/i_am_the_guy_wh...
Ouch. I think someone's going to have some explaining to do in the post-mortem.
I wonder if this has anything to do.
So I bought the ua.com for $76, at that point the seller must have realized what happened and immediately changed the sales price of all the other TLDs from $76 (example ua.co went from $76 to a min of $48,000), the marketplace confirmed the seller was verified as the owner or had authority to sell ua.com. Of course after the fact the marketplace reversed the transaction, they oddly reconfirmed the seller was verified/legit (I thought they would say the seller got past their verification but wasn’t legit), and they have refused to confirm why if the seller was legit that they reversed the sale transaction.
(This is also a reason why marketplaces, where things "just happen", are, let's say, complicated, as they do not adhere to this legal tradition.)
In either case there is both contract law and state federal law (unfair trade practices) that would support my claim in the courts if I were so inclined.
This would have been one of the more interesting answers to the most common support question at my company: "Why wont my runs sync?"
If anything, the example should boost your confidence in the marketplace. Marketplaces exist to provide a fair experience to both the buyer and the seller. Not just the buyer.
See also, this post: https://tinyprojects.dev/posts/i_bought_netflix_dot_soy
And they even forgot about http://google.xn--vermgensberatung-pwb/
EDIT: answered my own question. It is apparently actively used.
That domain has Namecheap's Whois Guard enabled, so there's no registrant information. However, I'm still inclined to think that it isn't Google's domain since the NS records for "duck.com" point to "nsXX.quack-dns.com"...
It was sold to DDG in 2018 https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/12/18137369/duckduckgo-duck...
Edit: After a few minutes of internet searching it turns out that while HPKP is deprecated Google does statically pin a set of certs into the Chrome build itself, their own sites presumably included.
That must be a pretty big server!
[0]: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cybersquatting-2013-05...
Notably .ar (and .su as the other responder to your comment notes) is not part of that. Therefore the process is going to depend upon the specific country/agency overseeing the ccTLD.
Is it just because it's Google ? or is there something that allows anyone who previously owned a domain to claim it back ?
Are there really no option to make a domain registration without expiration?
The closest you can really get is hiring a mark protection firm like MarkMonitor which themselves are registrars for a handful of TLDs (namely .com) and can basically indefinitely extend registrations for everything they have contracts for.
They didn’t let me through though… :(
I own steve.org.uk, and after moving to Finland I noticed steve.fi was going to expire in the near-future. So I setup a cron-job that would text me the moment it became free.
First of all it went from registered to being in the redemption state, then it became generally available. I managed to register it once I'd woken up - though competition was less than I'd otherwise expect because at the time you needed to have a Finnish identity-number to register Finnish domains. I suspect that is no longer true.
If you type "apple.com" you should get a disambiguation page saying "Did you mean the grocery store, the record company, or the computer company?" and from there you can reach the desired website. Somewhat like how it works in Wikipedia.
Unlike land, names are not a scarcity and can be shared. So why pretend they are like land?
Domain names cannot be effectively shared between non-cooperating entities. Someone has to own the DNS A/AAAA/CNAME/etc records, and be able to change them at will. They have to point to someone's server. It doesn't matter what technological implementation underpins name resolution, it's a fundamentally important property that it must be possible to have exclusive ownership of a domain name.
If I'm trying to reach my bank, I need to know that I'm talking to my bank, and we have a whole technological stack designed to ensure that, including cryptographic authentication and public logs (Certificate Transparency) to make sure nobody can secretly tamper with that authentication.
Any system that cannot provide such authentication is not a viable naming scheme.
There's a long-standing concept that has been discussed many times that naming could be based entirely on that cryptographic authentication, without having any kind of "human-readable" name at all. However, such a system would not solve the full problem that needs solving; it would just mean there would then need to be a separate directory system to help people find the server they actually want and then talk securely to that server.
You're right that names themselves are not truly scarce*, but "convenience of being referenced by a name on the internet" most certainly _is_ a scarce resource. There can only be one "first resolved entity" - this is why companies invest in SEO**. So it seems like what you're actually arguing for (and apologies if I'm misrepresenting you here!) is a situation where it's not possible for the average internet consumer to directly reference a particular domain, but rather where all name-resolution queries _have to_ go through a hypothetical unbiased "top-level" search engine - one which indexes not documents, but domains. Is that right?
If that's the case, then we've then opened up several other problems: - who decides the order in which those results get displayed? You may not think it matters, but I can promise you that NEO ("Name Engine Optimization") would then become a lucrative industry. Apple-the-computer-company certainly wouldn't stand for being the third result for apple.com - how do direct links and bookmarks work? - If there's some sub-identifier ("apple.computer.com" resolves directly), then who assigns those sub-identifiers? If ICAAN or a similar organization, then we're right back at the current situation, but one level deeper - the IT company for the Apple grocery store would be fighting (with their wallet) against the Apple Computer company. - If direct links only work via IP addresses, well, the average consumer wouldn't be delighted with that; nor would print advertisers trying to share a human-memorable address
It's a tempting idea, for certain, but I can't see a way of implementing this that doesn't immediately give rise to the same problems one layer deeper. You've clearly thought about this more than I have, though, so I look forward to hearing more about it!
* though to an extent, they are; since there can not practically be multiple items of a given name within a category - if every man was named John, then we would need some other way to distinguish them, and so "John<-identifier>" would _become_ their name
** where, here, the "name" is a search term rather than a specific one-to-one address - and, yes, I recognize that that's not _quite_ the same thing
apple.grocery apple.song/radio/fm apple.computer
Some rando leasing it to you can do whatever they want without worrying about any of that.
It would certainly be possible to treat "apple.com" the same way, but then, who decides who gets "records.apple.com" and who gets "computer.apple.com"? Does "records.apple.com" go to Apple Records, the music label, or to Apple Records, a hypothetical bookkeeping ("record-keeping") company, as one of many possible conflicts?
Yes.
Note: I have a law degree, but am not a lawyer
I’ll give a specific example of a buddy of mine who in 2008 (during housing bubble) used to buy foreclosed homes at auction. There was a $2-3M home foreclosed Miami Beach home on auction, he put in a bid for about $200k, then the clerk of court website crashed, he didn’t think much of it, come to find out it crashed for everyone locking in his bid, the bank moved to set aside the sale on the basis of uncontrollable 3rd party error, my friend showed up single handedly with a few cases printed up in support of his position and the court denied the banks motion and my friend received title to the house. If the bank had any remedy it was for damages against the courts system that caused the damage not against the contractual winner of the auction.
DuckDuckGo's crawlers only fetch icons and scrape data for some of their instant answers.
Was your recent sale grossly and clearly mispriced with evidence such as similar domains selling for many orders of magnitude more?
Who ever listed it agreed to the terms of service/contract multiple times and verified the price multiple times, it’s not incumbent on a buyer to point out to a seller their price is below market value (and that come directly from the case law for contracts). If there was an error (either by the lister or maybe a bug in the marketplace software) believe it or not the claim would be against them and not me, and presumably they would both also be covered by insurance specifically for those kinds of damages.
Im not saying I will take legal action, for example I offered them to just put my domains on their “premium listing page”. But I’m also not here to debate the legal merit of contract law.
As a person who misses a lot of flights, I can tell you that they can always reroute you, usually for free, and sometimes get you home faster, but if you're an asshole and constantly talk about how you've been wronged, you get to wait for the next flight.
I say this as someone who had their domain auctioned off when I was unemployed because I was too depressed to read my email and didn’t see the notice until I was out from my cave, losing a domain I owned since 1996.
I’m not in the side of the registrar, but no reasonable observer would think you should be able to buy ua.com for $78, so you haven’t done much in the way of “testing” by not being a high value customer, and by selling a domain that’s not valuable.
Of course I did that because I had just sold crypto comic book.com on their marketplace. And they refused to reverse my sale.
And you don’t think I did that ? Why would anyone make that up?
It’s really not on me to test the accuracy of a publicly traded company’s auction website or a seller who may or may not have priced their item in error. It would only be a moron who didn’t buy it under the circumstances, it’s not like I was responding to a Nigerian prince email, it’s a publicly traded company’s auction marketplace that claims to verify domain ownership before listing.
UA is likely a LARGE customer of the domain service you use and pay multiple thousands of dollars more for managed services and support than you do. They will get special treatment because it's in THEIR contract, just not yours.
Try reaching out to them and ask what kind of contract you need to sign to get the ability to reverse accidental sales, they probably can quote you a price.
It was an auction, meaning anyone could bid, and he put a genuine bid for $200k. Just because the system crashed doesn't mean anyone actually made a representation they didn't intend to.
A more realistic example would be the wrong house getting listed for auction due to clerical error (but one still owned by the bank). I'm fairly sure that would be set aside.
Auctions are contracts, in this case the seller (bank) agrees to accept the highest offer at the end of the expiration of the auction. So the terms are of the auction are time limited, historically the foreclosure auctions were done in person (sometimes on the courthouse steps), I’ve been at in person foreclosure auctions and the bank had a representative that ended up buying most of them (at least at the ones I attended)
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/02/citibank-just-go...
Maybe I'm stretching it a bit, but the element of reasonably assuming that it was intentional seems similar. I'm sure there are some differentiating intricacies in the law though.
Remember that recent viral video/news story of the Guy being dragged off a plane kicking and screaming because the airline had overbooked the flight. Airlines disclose they can overbook flights and remove passengers on such flights, usually people volunteer for freebies but no one did on this flight, they just happened to choose drag him off the plane forcefully kicking and screaming. Even when the airline had full contractual right to overbook and remove a passenger, they went about it all wrong, people still called him an asshole anyway but it was the airline that paid $140M for it.
With respect: those two points _do_ happen? So I must be misunderstanding your overarching point with them
I’m just telling a story of what happened, you seem to be arguing and it’s really bizarre. If you wanted to discuss the law in good faith fine, I’m happy to do that, but you are taking everything personal and lashing out with comments like my “low value domain” and just seem to want to justify what they did from error to paying for a special non advertised service that permits reversing sales...so I’ll step back.