This does'nt protect anybody from anything. Just a way to drum up more business for netsol.

say I was looking for a domain 'iwanttoreservethisdomain.com' ....now I go to my 'usual' registrar, say godaddy...it's unavailable. So being 'informed' about this deal, now I have to go to netsol to see if it's REALLY available and spend $35 for it. Or wait for it. Could be 4 days or forever.

And it's not like the 'frontrunners' (is that even a real threat?) would'nt know that too.

[edited by: simey at 11:45 pm (utc) on Jan. 11, 2008]

Comparison shopping?

Don't even go there because you don't start at the most expensive site looking for a 'deal'.

What difference does it make where you start? LOL this makes no sense.

Let's say I'm looking to set up a brand spankin new site, MYSHINYNEWWEBSITE.COM

I go to Godaddy, check the domain and hosting prices, I verify the domain is available, put a hosting package in the cart and move on to check the next deal...

Next I go to Register.com, do the same thing.

Ditto with Bluehost.com

Once more with 1 and 1.

Then I go to Netsol, same thing.

Now say I decided Register.com has the best deal...too bad. I'm stuck with Netsol for that domain name.

So tell me again how it matters where you start?

Bill,

The problem with your argument is that Netsol has advertising on their website (FedEx, Intuit etc.). They benefit from the users of their whois. Not to mention that eyeballs allow them to advertise their own wares which extend well beyond domain services.

Just like any content site that offers free goodies and monetizes with adsense/etc.

BTW, I tend to access the whois system directly because I don't trust any of them. And registrars are using the resources of the whois system without paying for it...

If they can get free whois ride, why can't their potential customers?

IncrediBill, with all due respect, I think the "freeloader" argument is irrelevelent. For one seeking a domain name, it is only natural to see whether that name is still free or not - and it is normal that this tool be provided by one offering a name-buying service - but that doesn't give a registrar the right to buy the name themselves just because someone searched for it. There is simply no argument for this practice - it is an abuse, pure and simple.

IncrediBill, you have awfully little sympathy for anybody not as well-informed as you.

This issue has nothing to do with newbies or the ill-informed, never was.

I think the "freeloader" argument is irrelevelent.

I think the company that spent a ton of money building up that site would disagree with you because they don't think that large investment was "irrelevant".

Like I said, if you don't like how they do business, don't shop there, it's real simple.

What difference does it make where you start? LOL this makes no sense.

Sadly, my argument makes more sense than yours because I don't know anyone that checks for prices on a $35/domain site more than once. I've not been back to them since all the discount registrars came online, certainly nobody I know does either.

Besides, why does anyone need to enter the domain name just to see the prices?

That argument doesn't fly when there's a pricelist:
[networksolutions.com...]

Don't get me wrong, I think it's kind of slimy to do what they do without warning, but now that everyone knows, just avoid it, done.

Like I said, if you don't like how they do business, don't shop there, it's real simple.

So, should we also dispense with Terms of Service, Privacy disclosure, etc.?

If you find out after the fact that a site has charged your credit card for stuff you never ordered, and sold your private details to another party without disclosure, just don't go to the site any more, right?

Besides, why does anyone need to enter the domain name just to see the prices?

Because they make the price list hard to find. It's a lot easier just to plug in a domain name.

but now that everyone knows

Everyone does NOT know. Everyone whose read this thread, a few obscure blogs, happened across a couple of articles in online technical publications, and a small article in the San Francisco Chronicle knows.

[edited by: tedster at 4:21 am (utc) on Jan. 12, 2008]

Besides, why does anyone need to enter the domain name just to see the prices?

But when you're looking at package deals with a domain and hosting and whatever other services...many, many people throw everything in the cart and compare the total price....not just the cost of the domain. Netsol, for example, gives you a free domain if you buy a year's hosting.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's kind of slimy to do what they do without warning, but now that everyone knows, just avoid it, done.

Exactly. Now that we know. The gripe is I didn't know before I clicked submit on Tuesday that the domain would be tied up. There I was researching domains and hosting for a potential new client...now the domain they want to register is locked up with them until the weekend.

If you find out after the fact that a site has charged your credit card for stuff you never ordered, and sold your private details to another party without disclosure

Which I don't see anyone claiming, much more proving, that the registrar here
has done. Then again, I'd imagine they're not as stupid as some believe them
to be, and they have consistently said they don't sell their queries or register
domain names for themselves.

(Well, they're doing the latter now. But they've never put commercial parking
pages at anytime, and they do release them after 120 hours.)

Their storefront prices have always been the same before, during, and (likely)
after this practice is over. Don't do business with them, as incrediBill said, if
you don't agree with their prices, although you can get a coupon code if you
happen to be one of their VIP customers. :)

I can understand why some of you would like to search for the domain name
at their site, find it available, then try to register it at your preferred registrar.
But since the latter can do all that for you, plus cut down the time spent from
looking it up at registrar A and trying to grab it at registrar B, isn't that much
more effective and efficient?

While some of you have been having fun tearing each other out, I've found by
then that: a) they've finally put their "customer protection" measure notice at
the middle right of their site, b) they've included bits about that in their FAQ,
and c) domain names looked via their availability search and in their account
don't resolve anywhere now.

I kinda don't have the link right now. But I found one where their own big boss
said they'll gladly drop this practice if ICANN finally resolves this issue.

Too bad they didn't do those back then since they've gotten a lot of publicity
that isn't good since then. But any publicity is good publicity, right? :D

Just my thoughts.

David ;o)

Arguments about 'what I should have done' don't hold water. It's netsol's actions that are the problem here, not some innocent bystander looking at domain names.

This is monopolistic behavior as far as I'm concerned. An innocent search on their site and you're basically forced to either do business with the or run the risk of your domain being tossed around by domain tasters. The minute you do a search at netsol, they force you to buy the domain from them if you want it or risk some nasty stuff. If that's not anti-competitive behavior in a free market, I don't know what is.

An innocent search on their site and you're basically forced to either do business with the or run the risk of your domain being tossed around by domain tasters.

Which is a real issue they said they're doing to address it, don't you think? If
the .com Registry won't, say, impose a fee and you-know-how isn't going to
create a final solution anytime soon, coupled with impatient people wanting it
resolved immediately, what can one suggest registrars do to remedy this now?

One can argue one is essentially "forced" to buy the domain name with them.
But they're not pointing a gun to your head making you register it with them if
you're willing to wait the full 120 hours.

One drawback to this I imagine is another user at another registrar might think
of the same domain name another looked up elsewhere and is now held up. I
don't know how likely this will happen.

Of course, they can't guarantee that name will still be available for you to get
on the spot at another registrar. No one on earth can do that 100%, but this
option appears to at least beat 'em tasters and front runners to the gate.

OTOH, there are some more fantastic suggestions here. They'd do well to try
'em out in the interests of "consumer protection".

David

monopolistic behavior

Hardly :) GoDaddy alone has 3 times more registrations than NetSol.

Here is a list of 900 alternative's if you don't want to do business with Netsol.
[icann.org...]

It's a bit like blaming Google if your site fall's in their index and they don't send you so many customers.

NelSol and Google are businesses providing some of their services for free. If you don't want to accept the freebies or don't want to do business with them thats fine; But it doesn't seem right to blame them for hindering your business when their service you're choosing to use from them is free.

We can argue the same points all day long, but this concession or whatever you want to call it:

Don't get me wrong, I think it's kind of slimy to do what they do without warning, but now that everyone knows, just avoid it, done.

is enough for me. My last post to this thread.

I would have no issues with this if it reserved the domain only if you are logged in as a potential customer AND you had answered "yes" to the question "would you like us to hold this domain for you for a few days while you think about it?", AND during that time, only the original enquirer could register it.

If you're selling domain names, it is only natural that you show your potential client what names you have to offer. Same as every store has a display for every product it has to offer. Just because I enter a store doesn't mean I have to buy there: the NS scam is the equivilent of a store owner retaining the product being browsed if the customer doesn't buy, at the same time as he makes damn sure that that product isn't available anywhere else - for an undisclosed period of time.

Yeah, now that we know, keep away, sure. Unfortunately, not all are as informed as we. Sorry for my insistance, but such rhertoric is a form of condonation.

[added]
g1smd hit it on the head. But even a registrar "holding" a domain name would be questionable!
[/added]

[edited by: Josefu at 11:16 pm (utc) on Jan. 12, 2008]

IncrediBill is out to lunch on this one. Just because Bill knows this is happening doesn't mean "everybody" knows, in fact in real terms almost no-one knows.

Also it's hardly "freeloading" to use a web tool that's freely provided for public use. Although I guess if the search box clearly stated that any unclaimed domains that show up will be reserved for NetSol registration only, then I could go along with your blame-the-victim philosophy.

BTW, anyone know of a safe, https encrypted WHOIS service? Offering a lookup service which was guaranteed to be safe from eavesdroppers and frontrunners would be a great selling proposition for some hungry registrar.

I don't know anyone that checks for prices on a $35/domain site more than once.

FYI, they actually offer you for 9.99 if you plan to register it for a 100 years. :) [networksolutions.com...]

I wouldn't know anyone who registers for more than 10 years, not even google

[edited by: Habtom at 6:06 am (utc) on Jan. 13, 2008]

And you are just too curious not to read the fineprint...

(...)If the domain name registry of a particular third level domain does not provide for an initial registration term of 20 or 100 years, then Network Solutions will register your domain name on your behalf for the maximum term available at the respective registry, and as long as your domain name is registered with us, we will continue to add additional years to your registration on an annual basis up to the total of 20 or 100 years, depending upon the term your select from the date of purchase. This offer is non-transferable and non-refundable

I laughed out loud when I read this one.
Talk about **scam**, this is insane. details on the 100 year registration [networksolutions.com] do we need an explanation for the domain-registrationally impaired? anyway if someone didn't know: there's no such thing. You give them the money, and they'll promise to renew it annually for another decade. You can check how many years/DECADES have passed on their ... *grin* online control panel! Which of course will be there for you, your children, your grandchildren and their children in the next 20 to 100 years, because... cool URIs don't change.

and again just for the right emphasis

This offer is non-transferable and non-refundable

wow, heh... *wipes eyes*... I'm off to show this to completely random people

Thanks for the hint Habtom...

It goes to show how I never bothered with NetSol for domain names again ( since our 'farewell' to them in 2002 ) for this "offer" has been available since 2004.

[edited by: Miamacs at 1:39 pm (utc) on Jan. 13, 2008]

FYI, they actually offer you for 9.99 if you plan to register it for a 100 years. :)

Or you can get a coupone code for being a VIP customer. :D

BTW, anyone know of a safe, https encrypted WHOIS service? Offering a lookup service which was guaranteed to be safe from eavesdroppers and frontrunners would be a great selling proposition for some hungry registrar.

Someone brought up the idea of using SSL for a registrar's availability search.
While I'll admit I'm not that tech-savvy on SSL, I'm not sure if that's going to
resolve the potential issue of a user's computer filled with spyware, plugins, or
what have you that might be feeding info to someone else.

Two big registrars have consistently stated their searches are secure, they
don't sell their queries, and they don't register searched domain names all to
themselves (well except one of them for now). But that still hasn't stopped a
lot of people from believing otherwise.

Besides, I'd imagine them registrars don't want to make guarantees they can't
realistically make.

David

BTW, anyone know of a safe, https encrypted WHOIS service? Offering a lookup service which was guaranteed to be safe from eavesdroppers and frontrunners would be a great selling proposition for some hungry registrar.

The safest way I know is the whois command line utility under Linux. You just open a shell locally on your Linux computer or with an SSH terminal emulator to a remote server, type whois example.com and get all the information you want without eavesdroppers in between.

ICANN published a warning about front running last october.

[securitynewsletter.com...]
(link to the PDF from ICANN at the end of the story)

FWIW, the GOoD registrar I usually use allows me to open up https: connections when checking domain availability, and it seems like this should be a recommended practice.

Of course there's no getting around what spyware could theoretically be sitting on one's computer, but it would close at least some of the security holes that spies could use to monitor your searches.

HTTPS would only protect the traffic from snooping eyes along the way, which is quite improbable. The main threat are the malicious operators of whois websites, and against that SSL is not a solution : they must have access to the domains you're checking anyway since they need to provide you with the service.

That's quite similar to ebusiness : credit cards numbers don't get stolen over the network when they are transmitted, but on the servers where they are stored / used.

last word on this ;):
This practice would be OK if they charged, say $10 a domain, and the same person who searched was able to register it only.

But, by holding it for 4-5 days people are extorted into paying the MUCH higher domain fee (and no, offering "discounts" for 100 year registrations doesn't count)

So if I've read this right...

If I'm checking out a domain name on my preferred registration company, and it shows up as recently taken - but with NetSol - then I:

1. Need to leave my preferred registration company and go visit the NetSol site instead - one that I've never used nor want to by the sound of it. On the NetSol site I'm forced to use their domain search to see if its actually available or not.

2. If it is available, I need to register it via NetSol - or risk someone else getting the domain (which obviously I'm not going to do).

Is this correct?

If so why should I have to be forced leave my preferred registration company and visit NetSol to see whether its NOT been registered?

If whoever did a search for the domain choose NOT to buy it with NetSol, why should I be forced to give them x amount of days to change their mind?

If whoever did a search for the domain choose NOT to buy it with NetSol, why should I be forced to register it with NetSol - a company I've not used and don't want to? Let's face it, even if its unlikely that anyone else would buy it, I'm still going to register it with NetSol just in case its bought before becomming available again.

And what happens when I go onto NetSol and find out that its not registered - does doing a new whois search for the domain reset the hold period on it?! Meaning that to register such a domain with my preferred company I'd need to use NetSol to find out the status - and in the process NetSol delays its release even longer?!

Would NetSol please tell me why the following is fair:
1. Person A searches for a domain on NetSol, blocking it (someone who decided not to buy it).
2. Person B (me) tries and fails to register it on with a different register only to find out NetSol is blocking it. Now I need to wait until it becomes available.
3. Person C comes in after me, goes to NetSol, and registers it.

I.e. someone who tries to register it AFTER me obtains it.

What happens when all registers start doing this? Anytime a domain shows up as being newly registered we'll need to visit that register - meaning that we'll end up going from register to register.

Not to mention that we'd end up buying domains from loads of registers in such cases - making management an issue.

Not to mention that domain registers would need to start using captchas everywhere to stop spammers blocking millions of domains.

End result = annoying for buyers, and overall less money for registers as buyers see many domains as being registered that aren't!

"I swear people lose their minds for no reason over the silliest nonsense."

Amen..........

Yes I agree!

It IS silly and it IS indeed nonsense.

I would also add 'petty' and 'unfair' and 'mean'.

Pull your head in NetSol.

Did I mention 'greedy'?

LATEST UPDATE FROM NETSOL.

We have decided to stop this unjust practise and instead just register every available .com domain name until somebody wishes to purchase them from us.

Visit us now and get your lovely new domain name from the only registrar that has it available. A bargain at ONLY $34.95.

Idiots.

I have just emailed every client and business associate. I doubt they will be using Netsol in the near future.

Forgot to post Chimp...err, Champ's statement:

[infoworld.com...]

Mitchell added that if ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the organization that oversees the domain name system, would move to cut down on these type of scams, then his company wouldn't have to engage in this kind of automatic search registration. "We would be perfectly happy to end this process if ICANN or the registries would do something to protect small businesses or other small users," he said.

Now don't any of you folks try to put words in their mouth. :P

David

The hilarious thing about Champ's statement is that ICANN would probably have let it go had he not publicly blamed the entire thing on them. Now they will definitely investigate this.

Two big registrars have consistently stated their searches are secure, they
don't sell their queries, and they don't register searched domain names all to
themselves (well except one of them for now). But that still hasn't stopped a
lot of people from believing otherwise.

And it won't - given that neither of those two statements precludes the free transfer of the data to another corporation held by similar shareholders.