May It Please the Mozzers,
A few days ago, I posted about Dell's lawsuit against a notorious domain-tasting network.
In that case, the domain-tasting network exploited I-CANN's five-day-refund rule to park millions of domains without paying for them while simultaneously earning revenue from pay-per-click advertisements. (There were trademark issues in the case as well.)
The reactions from Mozzers on the ethical/legal implications of domain tasting and I-CANN's refund policy were mixed. Some people thought domain tasting should be illegal and was harmful to business owners. Others felt that domain tasting was just smart business and that domain tasters shouldn't be punished for being shrewd and successful.
Today, there are allegations flying around that Network Solutions, a very popular internet registrar, has been exploiting that same five-day-refund rule to park domains and then sell them at an increased fee. If the allegations are true, then Network Solutions was operating a very cunning business.
Here's how the scheme worked:
Network Solutions would track what domains people were searching for. With this actionable intelligence in hand, it would quickly purchase those domains and park them. When an interested party went back online to purchase the domain, they would discover that Network Solutions had already registered it. Of course, Network Solutions was willing to sell it to them for a fee. This fee was more expensive than other competing registrars typically offer. Alternatively, if the interested party did not come back online to purchase the domain within five days, Network Solutions would simply take advantage of I-CANN's refund policy and void its own registration. No cash out of their pockets!
Network Solutions did not break any laws and did not violate any I-CANN policy by front running domains. However, it certainly feels like there is something unfair and harmful to markets going on here.
In my opinion, it negatively affects the integrity of the I-CANN system. Network Solutions essentially creates successive five-day monopolies on domains. Talk about creating an artificial scarcity to drive up prices!
Pass me a soap box because here's my prediction: If I-CANN doesn't eliminate or change its five-day refund policy by adding a transaction cost for registration (like PIR’s solution described in my previous post), we could be looking at a registration system that operates like OPEC. It allows anyone who controls a registrar to artificially inflate prices and invites a climate of collusion and gaming.
While this is not illegal, it disproportionately harms the small business or individual with fewer resources. This, in turn, would lead towards a web dominated by big players (large public institutions and large corporations). The "little guy," in turn, would be relegated to social media and other hosting sites for a web presence. To a certain extent, obviously, this has already happened and was unavoidable.
Without regulations and laws in place, those in power tend to stay in power. I-CANN and registrars have the most influence over the refund rule and the least incentive to change it.
Perhaps, however, with enough exposés like this one regarding Network Solutions and the Dell civil lawsuit, there will be sufficient pressure to take action.
Or am I just jealous that Network Solutions thought of it first?
Best Regards,
Sarah
Addendum: Bill Hartzer is credited with discovering this story and has excellent coverage here.
By: Sarah Bird
I have had this happen at least three or four times in the past, where I searched and found a domain I wanted, only to go back a few days later to register it and find out it was taken. In two cases, (for the better domains), they had been registered and were already being listed at a premium.
That's when I started using instantdomainsearch.com to search for domains.
Since it works dynamically there is no record of the search being made. when I find one I like and decide to buy it, I go to my registrar of choice and do so.
Personally, I think the five day rule is nonsense and hope that will change.
Great tip Seanmag! Thanks for sharing!
That's cool. Thanks. My policy is if you find one that you even think you would use then get it. I mean we're talking about the price of a happy meal here.
I don't have any proof, but I'm sure I was ripped off one or twice by Network Solutions in the past. I had checked with them and the domain name was available. Later when I went on to another registrar to purchase the name - it was taken.
I'm a member of the Dr.Dave school of thought. If I even have a hunch its a good one - I'm paying for it. If I don't like it or use it a year later, then I let it go.
But its a small price to pay for the peace of mind.
(I've actually been driving down the road when a good domain came into my head - I've then called someone I knew was by a computer - usually a family member. If they checked and it was available, I've given them my credit card over the phone so they could order it right then and there.)
Another dynamic domain search tool to play is Bust A Name but I swear it did "steal" my idea once [not sure how it can be possible as it doesn't seem to have any records either]...
Thanks for the tip seanmag: I've had planned domains snatched out from under my nose too, so I'll definitely be following your advice.
Talk about putting a "spin" on something. They register the domain to protect it for the person searching and then charge a premium for this unpubliced service. Give me a break. This seems to me to be on the lines of insider trading. They have access to information others don't and they take advantage of it. This is a shady practice at best.
Just to clearify, there are absolutely no additional charges for this "service". It has long been knowen Network Solutions charges more than most other registrars ($34.99, with fees decresing if you register for longer periods of time at once) and this you can buy the domain for this same price even after they have applied their "service".
Personaly I think if this were something that a group of registrars would do together (say GoDaddy, 1and1, Network Solutions, TuCows, Enom, etc.) it would be absolutely great, that way reputable, trustworthy registrars are in the "network" and non-trustworthy registrars cant get in.
I also fuilly agree with the idea of making this a option when searching for a domain name... even if it were one of those check boxes i have to uncheck.
While I do not agree with the way NS went about things, I beleive they had good intentions.... their company history, and current commitment to excellence makes me beleive that.
I can't resist asking this question. Ryan14 - you wouldn't happen to be affiliated with Network Solutions in any way, would you? I mean no offense, it's just that your comments read an awful lot like a company profile than an opinion. "Commitment to excellence?" "Trustworthy?" "Excellent customer service?"
Name a company that doesn't publically claim a "commitment to excellence."
In my experience their customer service isn't awful, but it's not the best. They've also given me a very hard time about transferring a domain away from them - their tech. support reps get a little too pushy in the sales department.
As far as "trustworthy" goes...well, I don't even know what to say to that. I trust them insofar as I expect to get what I pay for and for them not to wrong me in some illegal way, but I don't think trust is something that comes to mind immediately when I think of a corporation like NS.
I know I'm sticking my neck out here, but I have the feeling the sudden appearance of Ryan14 might have something to do with the visibility of this post and NS scrambling to combat negative press.
If I'm wrong: my sincerest apologies, and I think NS should consider hiring you for this sort of thing.
SEOmoz Staff: Feel free to delete this comment should you deem it inappropriate or inflammatory.
No, I am not affiliated with NS. I am indeed a customer, and a very happy one at that. I also own a small web design "company" that I hope can someday compete with the visibility of NS, but offer higher-end services.
I respect the company because of how they have treated me in the past. I would stick up for hostgator (my reseller host) and my current bank in much the same way... I'm just like that. If a company treats me good, I make sure it is known, and give positive reviews whenever I can.
As I have said before, I do not agree with how NS went about it, but I definately agree that thay needed to do something, and beleive that they were indeed looking out for customers (first and foremost), but also gained an advantage over their competition in a way as well.
BTW, thank you for the compliment with " If I'm wrong: my sincerest apologies, and I think NS should consider hiring you for this sort of thing." I enjoy writing, which I think is why I enjoy web design & development so much, because I can mix art and writing in a very creative way, as well as help others. It would be nice to be hired by a big company to do PR... but for now my small local clients wanting websites will do.
:)
Are you saying that NS had to go out and register domains that their customers were searching for, and then mark them up? I don't see how that's looking out for their customers, but I could be misinterpreting you.
Wouldn't it be better "PR" to just say "hey, it's a free market, don't blame NS.com, blame ICANN's stupid 5 day refund rule."
What's the point of a 5 day refund for a domain anyway? It's not like you buy a domain and then realize that it's not the domain you thought you really wanted.
CrappyTacos.com just isn't living up to the hype, I'm taking it back to the store! This is the last time I go drunk domaining!
Wow. The authenticity of Ryan's reputation management post just got a whole lot better.
This time, note the drastic increase in the level of misspellings and poor grammar versus his initial post.
In this post, Ryan seems to be thinking - "Uh oh, I came across a bit too corporate in my first post. I better inject a bunch of misspellings and poor grammar to throw the dogs (and Gab's cat), off the scent, so they'll think - "Surely Network Solutions would never hire someone that can barely articulate a point".
Sorry Ryan. You're BS'ing the wrong crowd.
Well done on producing perhaps the most impassioned thread of the year so far.
Looking through our iReputation brand monitoring logs I find that a number of customers have had a major problem with every single large scale corporation. It is just a symptom of expansion that customer service is reduced and at least some unhappy consumers are unavoidable.
That said, once Ryan 14 specifically stated that he was not affiliated with Network Solutions, however much it may have appeared at first that he was, I have to accept that this is true. Under UK law, since 31st December last year, it is illegal to falsely represent oneself as a consumer and I am lead to believe that a similar situation exists on your side of the pond? In that case, assertions to the contrary could be libellous.
Network Solutions are essentially catering to what we call 'the AOL market', that is to say less technologically aware consumers who are perhaps more nervous about acquiring domains and who equate cost with quality. As such, the act of tasting these domains does tie the user in to a more expensive provider and also could encourage the idea that, since other registrars are subsequently unable to provide the domain and Network Solutions are, there is genuinely a quality divide.
Assuming that Network Solutions are not actively encouraging this mis-advice then I cannot see that they are doing anything illegal and I would suggest that the onus is not on the registrar to cease a legitimate and profitable activity, but on action by I-CANN, or a change of legislation, to prevent them exploiting an existing loophole.
At the end of the day, those customers who are willing to pay more and cannot get the service elsewhere are unlikely to complain and less technically aware potential customers are likely to neither find reviews of this practise, nor understand what it means. Network Solutions are making money from this and, whilst it remains legal, there is very little incentive for them to stop.
A thoughtful response as usual Mr. Manley.
I hadn't made the connection that NS's apparent superior inventory of domains reinforces a consumer's belief that NS is a higher quality service and this in turn justifies the higher price.
Thanks again for your contribution.
Agreed, great insight.
Do we (NS) have a larger inventory of domains? Everyone else has access to the same domains as NS, unless someone purchased the domain FROM NS.
If a user searches for a domain on the NS homepage and finds it to be free, but then goes elsewhere and searches, if that domain has been tasted by NS then there will be an apparent superior inventory.
This is not actually reflecting an increased domain name resource, merely that NS will have control of the domain because it has been searched for.
Effectively this means that, if this were a widespread practice across registrars, a purchaser would be limited to buying a domain at the first site he searches on.
It is hard to think of an arguement that this is in the public interest.
I can definitely understand the opposition to NS doing this. I guess when it come right down to it, I just don't really have a problem with companies taking full advantage of the law to make a profit... its not as if we as customers would hesitate to take advantage of the law to our advantage if we had the chance, even if it was a disservice to the general public (non it savvy internet users).
Whilst I do not hold with the reasoning in some of your other posts, most specifically the "higher prices are a community service" comments, I do agree with this one.
As I said in the closing paragraph of my initial comment, there is no incentive for NS to cease a successful monetising practice. The onus on the prevention of this behaviour must fall to legislators or to I-CANN.
I would however suggest that it is a subject worthy of highlighting, if only to raise awareness in order to encourage one of these actions to see fruition.
Ok, maybe the other post was a stretch, but it doesn't make it completely false :) .. just a stretch
I should clarify.
By "apparent larger inventory" I meant that when the potential customer returns online to purchase the domain, it will seem to that customer that NS has a larger inventory of available names because NS will have registered the domains that the customer had been looking for.
I realize that all registries have access to the same names, but NS essentially creates a temporary 'inventory' by registering the names. To unsophisticated potential customers, this would appear as if NS has better availability/inventory of names because you can buy the names you want from them and nowhere else.
I also realize that this exclusive 'inventory' is only for five days. However, the potential customer doesn't know that. Thus, from the customer's perspective, it looks like NS charges more because they can deliver when other registrars can't.
Hi Sarah,
I agree with you on this one. The previous case was done by private individuals but I don't think it's right for such a huge company which sells the service to be doing the same thing. Imagine if the same were true for patent applications. This is harmful to the internet as a whole because they're causing roadblocks to the free market and entrepreneurs through inside information. Gooogle or Microsoft doing the same thing would see no end of outcry.
I think they might have broken the law -
by accessing the information I was looking up. ICANN has to have some rules on 'ease dropping' then - purchasing the domain i was wanting...
Netsol / is evil
I think that alot of people reading this may actually give some credibility of having their tin foil hat on. I don't know how many times I've heard someone suspect that the domains are purchased right after someone checks to see if they are available. I've even thunk it myself a few times. I'm a little surprised that Network Solutions would do this, as I considered them the most reputable of the lot.
That's what's so ethically interesting about this case. Everyone agrees that NS offers exceptional service. They are one of the "best" registrars.
Technically, they aren't breaking any laws or any policies. They are being the very best business they can be within the bounds of the law by exploiting the existing policies.
Perhaps they are breaking some kind of unspoken trust with the consumer, but did we as consumers have unreasonable expectations?
That's why I think the onus is on I-CANN to eliminate these loop holes. So that all registrars have to play by the same rules and so that the consumers know what to expect.
Just because they found a way to capture their potential customers doesn't mean that they don't offer exceptional domaining services. I'm sure that some people will stick with them.
But it does leave a bad taste in the mouth, doesn't it?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why don't the registrars enable anyone to 'hold' the domain for free for 5 days after searching for it?
Whenever I've searched for a domain, I never see that option but it certainly seems like the true intent of the ICANN policy.
Good Question DMG. It's always advisable to bring it back to basics.
Initially/Ostensibly, the purpose of the five-day refund rule was
I think these are both excellent goals. But surely requiring a minimal (five cents?) non-refundable transaction cost wouldn't be too burdensome?
I'm just brainstorming, but I think there should be complete refund for transactions made with stolen credit cards with a copy of a police report. Perhaps it would be wise to limit this time period to fifteen days. (Five days isn't long enough in real cases of theft in my opinion. Sometimes it takes a while to discover your credit card information has been unlawfully appropriated.)
Thoughts?
Agree with both of your points here, Sarah. My only concern is that 5c might not be enough to make tasting financially untenable for all that long...maybe 10c or even 20c would do it? I can't imagine that someone who is legitimately scoping out a domain, or even 100 domains, would gripe about paying $10 or $20 in the latter case.
Any act of Network Solution that is corrupt is scary. Isn't NS who controls the .com DNS list as well as the entire whois database? They don't just have more information than us, they control a lot more than anyone else.
Holy cow! Whether they broke any laws or not, that has backdoor shenanigans written all over it. I sincerely hope your prediction doesn't come true Sarah.
On another note, the word "today" is written twice within the long a** link..." Today, there are allegations flying around today that Network Solutions...". I was born anal retentive... it's not my fault lol.
Thanks for the heads up Crash! I tore this one out and I'm sure some grammar and spelling slipped through the cracks!
I, for one, hope Network Solutions takes it up their "back door" from other registrars on this. Or at least loses their OWN license as a registrar!
I had a suspicion that they were doing this. So now whenever I search for a domain name I register it right away and don't waste anytime. It's totally unfair that they are able to do this though.
Totally ignoring the question of whether NS is right or wrong, I believe that Icann needs to step up and change their rules on the five day tasting policy. Take a look at https://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-initial-report-domain-tasting-07jan08.pdf . After a rather thorough run through on this document, it is my understanding that this whole problem started from when Icann introduced AGP - add grace period. This policy / feature was instituted for registrars when a domain name was either misspelled and needed to be changed (refund and repurchase) or when a registrar was testing their programs to make sure that they could properly register domains.
Based on this reading I have some initial thoughts I would like to share. Icann needs to address this issue. According to the report millions of domains (a high percentage are .com) are being held due to front running / tasting. The problem is that it does hurt consumers (and companies). If a consumer searches for a domain that is not availalbe, good chances are that they assume it is registered and the don't know whether or not it is being held by a taster or front runner. In all reality most will probably assume it is registered for a year or more and is unavailable. They will either have to find another domain or they wil not make a purchase. This can take away potential sales from registrars. For businesses and companies just look at the case with Dell.
Second, I think what is most important here is to consider what the initial intentions of the AGP polic were. Allowing consumers to be able to change domains when they misspell or allowing registrars to test their systems. Well, I have never heard of a registrar refunding a customer for a misspelled domain. I'm sure most list in their TOS that it is your fault if you misspell the name (perhaps some do refund - please comment if you have experience with this). Additionally, if a registrar is testing their software for registering domains, there is no reason that they should be placing a five day hold on domains that would likely sell to consumers.
I feel that the proper action Icann needs to take is to heavily restrict the use of the AGP. They should stop allowing for misspelled domains since registrars don't pass this savings on to the consumer. For domain registration software testing they should make registrars use domains that are 30 or more characters in length so with some number scheme so that any domain that they don't hold domains consumers may want to buy.
I am not looking to start a heated debate on this topic but I wanted to share my opinion and I don't think some of my points have been discussed here.
They can't really restrict the practice of buying domain names that are mis-spelled due to the every growing, and annoying, trend of buying domains that are mis-spelled on purpose because people think its "clever".
I can't stand these "clever" domain names, and would rather people just spell things right, but if we tried to restrict buying those domains we would be infringing on a lot of constitutional rights.
Unfortunately, some problems are never going to be able to be solved for good, we can only hope to restrict it a little bit. It might be easier to punish people who are suspected of front running or tasting. I'm sure ICann is able to track people who buy and refund domains by the hundreds.
Congrats! Nice article,
Sarah, you should now write about white or blue collar in the search engines like MSN and Google who pull out the domain of competitive websites to help big fish to prevail alone.
I hope you can write something on that.
What I know some workers for these search engine companies get paid money to do this dirty job.
I wish you all the happiness
Janice
I'm researching through all the blogs trying to find some information on DNS changes and how they affect SEO. I didn't find a lot here, but this was really insightful :)
I think I agree with the general concesus here... illegal or not, it shouldn't be allowed. Great post!
A follow up to this post (if anyone is still checking in) - this just in from DotSauce.com
Domain Tasting Goes Sour: ICANN Will No Longer Issue Registration Refunds During a special meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors a resolution was passed which will end domain tasting as we know it. The discussion was sparked in response to the scandalous practice of Network Solutions hijacking domain searches in recent weeks. Oddly enough, the industry can be thankful to Net Sol for getting the snowball rolling on the end of domain tasting.
Full article...
https://www.dotsauce.com/2008/01/29/the-end-of-domain-tasting/
Well done ICANN :)
I guess since nobody else is I should make the obvious analogy: How would you feel if you were shopping for houses through your real estate agent and without your knowledge they bought every house you looked at just so they could mark it up 20% and sell it to you. The ICANN policy has nothing to do with it since it is not illegal.
Just because people don't know what the registration process is SUPPOSED to cost, it doesn't mean it's ok to mark up the price. What they don't know can, and does, hurt them.
I can attest that this does come up sometimes with real estate practitioners, in some cases it is illegal and in almost every case it is unethical.
And I think your analogy is perfect.
As for me, its not just the ICANN registration policy that is out of whack, but the whole damn system. Has anyone ever had a domain name lapse and had to recover it? Or tried to buy back one of your own expired domains? Its a nightmare.
Thank goodness for the little "Auto Renew" checkbox.
The problem with this analogy is that they are not increasing their prices. Network Solutions are more costly than many providers, but not increasing the mark-up the cost of reserved domains is what keeps this legal.
Losing a domain once someone has begun registering it (because, for example, your registration process was slower), would be irritating and so reserving the domain at the start of the registration process is not unreasonable and offers good customer service.
Purely playing devil's advocate here; it could be argues that Network Solutions consider a home page search to constitute the start of a registration?
I see your point but I have to disagree based on the point that it is not really about the markup, it is the fact that Network Solutions is creating a conflict of interest based on the services they provide. They are using inside information to profit in a way that they wouldn't have if the customer didn't know... I'm not saying it's illegal, maybe it's not even unethical, but it's pretty poor form. This is the general spirit of business I hope I NEVER fall into.
Your analogy is simply unfit for this situation. NS is not marking anything up. They are charging what they always charge.
In regaurds to the second half of your post, your telling me large companies (such as ebay) dont know they could go to go daddy and get domains for cheeper? I find that hard to beleive.
Your analogy is simply unfit for this situation. NS is not marking anything up. They are charging what they always charge.
In regaurds to the second half of your post, your telling me large companies (such as ebay) dont know they could go to go daddy and get domains for cheeper? I find that hard to beleive.
Well that'll teach me to use Network Solutions again in the future: I too have lost domain names. Thanks for this Sarah--it's amazingly useful stuff. I hope they're paying you well. :D
I wonder how many variations of "Seomoz" we can get NS to register? seomozismymoz.org, etc LOL
I think that the case regarding Dell is definitely debatable, but for a registrar to be doing it is simply wrong. If this wouldn't qualify as collusion, I can't think of anything that would. Network solutions and other registrars are at a huge advantage as to the data that they have access to, and to deliberately use this information for profit padding at the expense of their customers, is wrong and illegal. I'm happy to say that I left Network Solutions over 8 years ago, and have never had any intention of going back. Customer support of not, their price is over 5 times higher than godaddy. For me that works itself out to be over $10,000 per year in registration fees. Would love to see them burn for this one.
Man I wish I had thought of that and then never thought of all the small businesses it was affecting.Kina reminds me of money laundering schemes...like in part two of confessions of an economic hitman.
Interesting read, thanks for the post.
Interesting read, thanks for the post
Thanks for further shedding a light on this. Schemes like this are ugly, and you're absolutely right...the 5-day refund policy needs to be modified to prevent unethical monopolization.
Actually, Bill and quite a few other bloggers, including graywolf and dotsauce have been discussing this over the past few days. I ran across a blog by an employee https://www.shashi.name/ of NetSol who has commented on NetSol's response to the uproar and the changes proposed and completed.
This is another example of the power of the people facilitated by the Internet and specificically for me through Twitter and blogs.
Does anyone consider it a double standard to approve of domain tasters, but disapprove of NetSol taking advantage of the 5 day period?
Niether is the intended use of the 5 day period. It is for mistakes. Taster's and NetSol's actions are not mistakes, but are intentional. Don't forget the motive all you lawyers out there. ;)
Thanks for bringing that post to my attention.
According to Shashi, an NS employee writing on his personal blog, here is Network Solution's official response:
Update : 6.31 p.m 01/09/2008 - Official from Network Solutions :-
Again, this comes from www.shashi.name/
Um, I think the last line is the most important one there...
Basically "We hear you. We're gonna stop screwing domainers who check WHOIS. But we're not going to stop screwing the small business guys (i.e. the ones searching from the homepage) out of an extra $25* per domain."
(Thanks for sharing, Sarah!)
*difference between NS and almost every other registrar's annual reg. fees.
It is arguable that a user who is searching on the Network Solutions home page, in the search box which is labelled 'find a domain', is looking to purchase.
To reserve the domain at this point could be compared to not selling a painting whilst the curator is already showing it to another interested party.
If a user searches for a domain from the home page and is told that it is available, then ensuring that it remains available whilst the transaction is completed seems good customer service.
Doing this with whois information is a different ball game, but Sarah's post suggests that this nefarious practise is going to cease, so it might be a little niggardly to continue to campaign against it.
Hi Sarah,I use https://domaintyper.com And I never had any issues with this domain search tool!It's fast and has secure connection too (https).
I don't really see an issue here. They don't actually inflate the price of the domain, they keep them the same as if you had originally purchased the domain when you went on the site and searched the first time.
I also have to take issue with people posting about them taking part in this practice and having no personal experience with NS performing this action. It adds fuel to the unfounded fire, so to speak.
Lets face it, this is just a case of a large company coming under attack because it is a large company and has become such by utilizing the laws as they were written. GoDaddy and every other domain registrar could do the same thing, but they don't.. and I don't care what anyone says, NS's customer service is by and far the best service of any of the domain registrars I have dealt with..
If they weren't planning on buying the domain from NS, why did they use NS whois in the first place?
This is not as a big of a deal as people are making of it.
Mr. TommyBoy (registered on 1/10/2008, with 0 posts before this one)
I can PERSONALLY tell you in my PERSONAL experience, when I search domain name availability I usually am too excited to go to godaddy and I just type "whois" in google search and click on the first link (I think anyone who has ideas like this knows what I am talking about). But whenever I register domains I always go through godaddy, NS is offering a service which is assumed to be free and without strings, and then using that information for 'buying' domains under the pretense of 'protecting customers' - when really, all it's doing is securing them a domain sale at their flat-rate price which just happens to be considerably more expensive than other registrars.
NS is out to actually make a profit. GoDaddy and other registrars that don't charge anything significant can do so and that is fine, but when you need customer service it shows. I'm not saying there isn't the rare occasion that someone has a bad customer experience with NS, but they do have great customer service, and I say this as someone who deals with companies like this almost constantly. I'd also be willing to bet a lot of those people have problems with customer service almost everytime they call them.. you know the people who just can't be satisfied because when they call customer service, they are probably already mad about something. I am, I admit, a bit biased as I work for the company in question, but in my opinion it only makes me more of an authority and gives a better perspective on whats going on.
Either way, I know NS has been discussing the issue a lot and apparently they are making changes to their policies. But if I were a customer and looked at a domain, I'd actually have no problem with this practice. If nothing else, all you have to do is wait the 5 days and purchase from some other site... Its not as if most people need the domain THAT quickly.. they probably don't have a site yet or are redeveloping and buying the domain for branding purposes. How many people buy a domain the DAY OF a site launch?
Tommyboy, I noticed you posted to this blog post as well as the "Outing Network Solutions on SEO" post.
You're bound to draw some flack for your views and defense, but I want to say I congratulate you on actually outing yourself as an employee of Network Solutions.
This place (SEOMoz) isn't like most places on the web. We actually respect and welcome differing opinions.
When people come on and are an obvious corporate shill, but they hide their true identity/motives - we're going to figure it out - and call them on it.
But when you come on and say "Hey, I work for the company in question, and yes this happens and no this doesn't happen, oh and we're not evil bloodsucking leeches, etc." - then you're going to get a lot less flack.
At least from me.
Of course, it might have been nice if you informed us of this in your first post, instead of your very last - but better late than never - right?
They have not secured a sale. You have options:
1. wait four days, and then regsiter it at your prefered registrar, by this time a taster or squater has said "oh, crap, i cant take their domain" and has forgotten about it, thus NS has protected you, and you have given them nothing in return.
2. Call NS, tell them hey, release the domain, and I figure they will.
3. do your whois somewhere else, thus losing NS a potiential customer.
I find it amazing people are so upset about this... almost everyone who is complaining has said "I hate NS, I will nevere buy from them" in some way... and this is only *hurting* ns customers... so why be upset..
Oh, by the way, im 18, and when i type fast because someone accuses me of some bs, i make mistakes. As Ive said, thanks for the compliment with the "you work for ns" bullshit, but as i have said, i dont... yet i hope to a) work for a large company like ns someday or b) own a large company like ns someday...
But it is still pain in a** and very frustrating to discover this issue and then, have to call them and put on hold for various reasons and then getting a domain.
I guess there are higher chances of NS losing a customer than gaining due to these actions.
exactly. then again, i know i wouldnt want a customer who uses me to do research and then buys elsewhere. Thats like going to Best Buy, milking their sales guy for all his *knowledge* all with the intention of taking what you learned and going to walmart. And people wonder why good companies go under and places like walmart treat us like crap, we as consumers could give a shit about service, we just want low prices, and as long as we have that mindset, companies will deliver.
Long time reader, first time poster.... this one struck something in me to respond.
While I cannot say I agree entirely with the practice, this article should perhaps add Network Solution's response to this article in order to remain somewhat unbias.
Also, it should be noted that Network Solutions is not charging any more than their typical prices for the domain names, and after five days, you can of course register your domain with a place like GoDaddy.
There is a reason Network Solutions is the preferred registrar of Big Name companies like papa johns, cnn, and even eBay, and that is they are trustworthy and have excellent customer service.. something that, in my book, is worth the money over a comapny like GoDaddy or 1and1, which are both known to have horrible customer service.
Tucows said "While this practice is commonly referred to as front running, Network Solutions has since responded, and have said they instituted this practice as a way to protect potential Registrants against front running by ensuring that the domains they searched for remained available for purchase. We’re willing to give Network Solutions the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Tucows applauds any attempts to protect Registrants from the less scrupulous members of the Internet community."
Source: https://about.tucows.com/2008/01/08/registrar-reputation-and-trust/
Being someone who registers with Network Solutions, I appriciate this practice as it stops domains i check on from being snatched up by actual front-runners. In fact, I will continue to give them their hight prices because of this additional feature.
Either way, I beleive all of the facts should be offered here, not just the bias ones.
Thanks for your input Ryan.
I much prefer to have a multitude of perspectives.
I suppose it would change my opinion about Network Solution's practice (front run the domain so that nefarious people don't front run the domain) if they did not charge a premium for that 'service.' If done judiciously, it would prevent large domain-tasting networks from keeping domains wrapped up forever. In a way, it could be seen as trying to prevent the abuses that the five-day refund rule invites.
However, along with the nefarious registrars, it also prevents other perfectly reputable registrars from getting the business. I don't know how I feel about that? Unfair competition or just very clever business?
I have no personal knowledge about whether Network Solutions offers the domains at an increased rate or not. I have read comments from other bloggers indicating that Network Solutions did charge more for the parked domain than other registrars typically charge. If true, this does suggest that Network Solutions was not acting entirely altruistically.
If you, or anyone else reading the blog, learns more about this situation, I encourage you to post a comment.
Thank you for adding to the discussion. Nothing is black and white and I don't intend to treat it as such.
Best Regards,
Sarah
I could see this as a feature if you knew it was going to happen (say a check box that says "I'm thinking about it, hold it for a few days while I think"), but to do it automatically I don't think that's right. Too many people will then try to register it elsewhere, and not know that it's just being held.
xxclixxx, that was exactly my thought.
I was walking to catch my train and I kept thinking about Ryan14's comments. I do want to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I have been struggling with this one.
Then I realized that I would have had absolutely no problem with this if NS had been more transparent and offered it as a truly optional, free service. "Would you like Network Solutions to hold this domain for five days? Doing so may prevent it from being taken by illegitimate registrars and domain squatters."
That would have changed everything for me.
Great minds think alike xxclixxx.
Sincere Regards,
Sarah
Ryan14,
I've actually had the exact OPPOSITE experience with Network Solutions and GoDaddy. I've found NS to be slow and/or unresponsive several times in the past, and have stopped using them for anything that I have control over wrt my clients' domains and hosting. GoDaddy, on the other hand has been very easy to work with. Information is very easy to find on their website, and they don't try to sell me additional services I don't need everytime I log in.
While I agree with you on your main points, I can tell you that I've had a very bad experience with GoDaddy support when I was fruitlessly trying to reach their legal department via the phone and they kept telling me that that exact departmant had "no phone number or ext #" - so, sorry, just email...
Ann, as I have not ever dealt with the legal department, I suggest people would defer to your experience there! :D
How very brilliant of them. <scratching her non-existant beard thoughtfully while plotting>
They can reach you, but you can't reach them....
Rand, can we disconnect my phone???
[just kidding folks!]
haha, Sarah, I bet there was some thoughts behind this comment: "Rand, please, take that seriously!" [ok, just kidding too]
On a serious note, we did have one of our domains suspended on GoDaddy due to some ridiculous complaint and we all we were sent was some email from domainsdisputes[at]godadddy.com saying that they just did that and that's it - no explanations, nothing! It took us a week or two to get through to them and find out what actually had happened!To be fair though, our issues with their tech department was always settled within an hour or two!
Actually, I'm a little bit depressed about how FEW phone calls I get around here. In my former incarnation as a litigator, the phone would ring off the hook. Now, not so much.
Of course, in my profession, no news is very good news!!
Okay. Now it's business time:
I'm surprised and sorry that you had so much trouble. I assume that someone sent a bogus DMCA take-down notice to GoDaddy and then GoDaddy disabled your site immediately, correct? That's all well and good and in accordance with DMCA procedure, BUT GoDaddy should have made it easy for you to make a counter-notification. Somebody somewhere should have been able to tell you what the specific complaint was and what you can do about it. The statute requires them to have this procedure if they want to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA that shield them from liability.
I note that on their website, they provide the following instructions re: counter-notifications:
Of course, this is only well and good if they have given you a copy of the original DMCA take-down notice. How else can you respond?
Sorry for your trouble Ms. Smarty.
Your response is just awesome, Sarah! Yeah, that was exactly the case. And we settled the issue once we found out what happened! But I am still depressed at recalling how desperately we were trying to get in touch with them! Those impersonal emails just drove me crazy! And you know what, they didn't give the phone# in the end, we managed to get the answer via email, but it took sooo long!
Hey sarah that's pretty specific counsel? Doesn't your disclaimer in every post say you can't do that? Just wondering I don't know how that works...
Well, it's a fine a line Mr. C.
I can give general information about the law (What it says, what people think it means etc etc.). I start getting into trouble when I apply law to a specific set of facts.
It would be very risky for me to say "Calamier, based on what you have told me, I think you should do XYZ because your conduct A makes you guilty of B."
It would be less risky for me to say "Calamier, this is what law B means. And people who break that law should do XYZ. But I can't tell you whether your conduct A makes you guilty of B."
I sometimes try to cheat by going giving hypotheticals.
It's hard for me because I genuinely want to be helpful, but I don't want to lose my license.
Conundrums.
I bet :) , thanks for the response :)
My GoDaddy experience:
I started off quite naively years ago doing my hosting and domains with Hostway. Since they themselves are not a registrar - but a reseller - it becomes a nightmare when they change their underlying registrar.
I tried to change some DNS settings once and their dashboard/control panel said I couldn't because I wasn't the owner. A quick Whois lookup showed that I was, so I called Hostway.
They were worthless in their support.
Consequently, I had a GoDaddy account because they had some special on domain names years ago and when I buy sites or domains via e-bay, most of the sellers on there use GoDaddy as well.
Out of frustration I figured it was easier to transfer the domain name and change the DNS settings through GoDaddy - which is way easier than Hostway.
It worked so brilliantly that now as my domains near their expiration date - I just transfer them to GoDaddy.
With any luck, I'll be 100% GoDaddy.
But I have not had to deal with their legal department, so I'll take Ann's word for it.
Additional thought.. Although I'm not sure other people would agree. I have to believe that NS is doing a service to the community by charging more than other registrars. Consider this, if GoDaddy and some of the other major players weren't charing next to nothing for the cost of registering a domain, would front running even be an issue? I don't think people could afford to stock up on domains as easily if they had to pay 30 dollars as opposed 2, maybe 3, dollars.
If you want to blame anyone for front-running, blame the people who are giving away the domains to the scammers.
"I have to believe that NS is doing a service to the community by charging more than other registrars. Consider this, if GoDaddy and some of the other major players weren't charing next to nothing for the cost of registering a domain, would front running even be an issue? I don't think people could afford to stock up on domains as easily if they had to pay 30 dollars as opposed 2, maybe 3, dollars."
Are you serious? I really don't know how to respond to that... wow...
I didn't say it was an obvious service.. but I don't think you can argue that the extremely low cost of domain names, especially if bought in bulk, contributes to the front-runner problem. I'm not saying that NS holding the domains after you search for them is a service, I'm saying that charging more for the domains is. I'm sure people who want to buy their name as a domain and only pay 3 bucks don't think so, but people who want to buy useful domains like "shoes.com" or something (just giving an example, don't look to much into it), would probably be happier if someone else who had no intentions of using the domain didn't buy it just because they could afford it and knew someone would eventually want it .
In truth, I-Cann should just make it illegal to buy domains and not put them in to use within 3-6 months of purchase. There are probably flaws to that philosophy, but I think it would serve the general web public better than the current laws.
Its also worth asking.. are you upset about the practice or are you upset about the prices? That is, if NS did the same thing, but their prices were lower than everyone elses would this still be a problem or would you then decide it was good customer service?
Your entire argument hinges on NS having customer service which is superior to any other registrar, and that is simply not true.
This reminds me of the last time a company tried to give me a 'service' and it didn't work out well. I ended up with 19gigs of 3rd party bloat-ware that bogged down the laptop I bought my dad.
Your company's 'service' has CASH COW written all over it, and like I said, you can defend it and make all arguments you want, and believe me I commend you on a magnificent PR job on this thread. Just know that I will be the one creating the kind of company that will run yours out of business.
I think it's important to remember that there is no cost for front running because of the five-day refund period. Thus, the registration price, whether it be high or low, is a red herring. The refunding party, whether they registered through GoDaddy or else where, still gets 100% of his or her registration costs back.
The only arguable way that higher registration prices could deter front running (and domain tasting) is that it takes money to temporarily hold the domains during the five-days prior to the refund. If all registrar prices were en par with NS, then front running would require more money, but this money isn't really a cost because it is all refunded back.
The availability of credit mitigates against this deterrent. Front runners can borrow the money and have it refunded before they every have to pay anybody anything.
Thus, it doesn't make sense to blame cheaper registrars for nefarious practices like front running.
The only effective way to combat front running (and domain tasting) is to create non-refundable transaction costs.
My concern is that even if NS stops the practice (and apparently they plan on it), other unethical registrars will probably take advantage of the refund policy in a similar way. I sincerely hope that I-CANN can act soon to change this policy, instead of taking 2 or 3 years to accomplish easy goal.
You are correct that they can request a refund prior to 5 days being up,but then they would effectively be giving up the domain, unless they reregister it, in which case they still have x amount of dollars tied up in the process. Many front runners, and I know this from personal experience with people who practice front-running, buy the domain 1 year at a time and don't care abot the refund because its only a few dollars. They can buy thousnads of domains and only need to sell a few for a good deal of money and they come out ahead.
Even if they only registered 4 days at a time, request a refund, and then reregisted again for 4 days, and continued to repeat that process... they would still have the money tied up in the process. They only real difference is that they could get that money back if they decided a domain was never going to sell.
I-CANN is not going to change their policies because the fact of the matter is they are offering a good/service and it's not good practice to sell anything without having some sort of return policy. It may be annoying to me and you and every web developer on the planet, but to joe schmoe who thinks they may want to use a domain, and then decide they like a different domain better, its just good customer service.
Except, of course, that there are no registrars that I can think of who pass this 5 day grace period on to their customers.
If we get a call at NS and someone wants to "return" the domain, if its within 72 hours I believe they return it. I don't think they really advertise that, Which is bad form on their part I will admit.