[HN Gopher] Ask HN: I purchased a domain and now the registry wa...
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: I purchased a domain and now the registry wants to take it
back
I purchased a very nice .io domain 2 days ago and I received an
email from my registar today saying there was a bug in the registry
and that the domain should not have been available so they are
going to cancel my registration. Right now I own the domain. What
can I do? Is it okay for registries to do this? Does it happen
often? Thanks!
Author : forty
Score : 41 points
Date : 2021-11-19 19:56 UTC (3 hours ago)
| slater wrote:
| Can you transfer it to a different registry?
| forty wrote:
| The registry is the .io registry so it's bound to the domain
| (so no)
|
| I might be able to transfer it to another registar, but I'm not
| sure it would help (the registar is Gandi and I trust them)
| herpderperator wrote:
| Careful with Gandi: https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/09/ga
| ndi_loses_customer_...
|
| Previous discussion:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22001822
| crooked-v wrote:
| > Right now I own the domain.
|
| No, you don't. Read the terms and conditions.
| forty wrote:
| I control the domain if you prefer.
| lucb1e wrote:
| What do they say that OP overread, then?
| dutchbrit wrote:
| You technically do not own a domain, but you lease it them.
|
| "ICANN's official policy is that domains are not property to be
| owned. Domain names are registered (rented) by payment of an
| annual registration fee."
| teeray wrote:
| When existing tenants get to extract arbitrary rent to transfer
| their lease, it sure looks a lot like property ownership to me.
| ebcase wrote:
| .io (like all ccTLDs) is not governed by ICANN, fwiw.
|
| But your point is valid that domains are essentially registered
| according to the terms of a probably-long and verbose
| agreement.
| swalsh wrote:
| Domains should be NFT's
| rfd4sgmk8u wrote:
| Many have tried (they dont need to be NFT's, they just need a
| record mapping of name->NS IPs). Namecoin tried this.
| Handshake is trying this. ENS is trying this.
|
| IMHO they will fail. You wont see decentralized name
| registration in the global DNS namespace. Too much abuse
| potential, too little flexibility with errors, trademarks,
| etc
| BayAreaEscapee wrote:
| Imagine what a train wreck that could be. You just know that
| some Fortune 500 is going to have someone steal their private
| keys proving domain ownership. Bankofamerica.com now belongs
| to a hacker in Tver, Russia?
|
| Blockchains are a great idea but some problems are better
| solved by the brick-and-mortar legal system.
| dreyfan wrote:
| Yeah, then when someone loses or has stolen the keys to that
| wallet, the domain is forever gone.
| jedberg wrote:
| Like how when someone steals your car it's just gone
| forever?
|
| There still exists a legal system in which the NFT could
| potentially recovered. Yes it's harder with easy cross
| border theft, but that just means we need better global
| treaties.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Apples and oranges.
|
| If your car is stolen, there's a potential for it to be
| physically found and returned.
|
| If someone somehow finds the private key to steal an NFT,
| they could steal the NFT and then delete the private key
| for the new address that owns it. At that point, treaties
| don't matter. The ownership exchange is permanent until
| someone can derive the private key from the public key,
| which if someone did, then ALL NFTs could be stolen.
| jedberg wrote:
| Sure but if they delete the private key then they don't
| own it anymore either. It would be like destroying the
| car. And yeah, if someone steals your car and destroys
| it, you can't have it back.
|
| There's also an easy fix for this. Make the NFT include a
| smart contract that requires periodic "checkins" that
| require the private key, and if the checkin fails,
| ownership reverts the previous owner or another address
| specified in the smart contract.
|
| Or attach a smart contract that requires registration
| with a third centralized party.
|
| NFT technology can interplay with existing legal
| frameworks and protections with the right programming.
| rfd4sgmk8u wrote:
| It can't, and never will. The more you build the central
| controls, like trademark enforcement, to the system, you
| might as well replace it with a central database and
| licensed registrars and thats what we have now.
|
| The global DNS namespace is heavily controlled. I very
| much doubt that these funny namespaces will be anything
| other than a fad used in niche applications. Metamask
| supports .eth, fine, but you wont be pointing at your
| https server with it if you expect grandma to resolve it.
|
| We have seen it before, many times. NewNet isnt a thing
| this decade. You cant invent arbitrary TLDs and expect
| the internet to use em.
| nso wrote:
| Nothing should be a NFT
| websap wrote:
| Tell them you will not be returning it and if they do take away
| your access you will pursuing legal action.
|
| Do you think you could ever convince them by saying hey I saw
| this domain was available but came back 2 days later and it's not
| available, can you still get it for me? The answer is
| unequivocally no.
|
| Know your right and defend them against overreach of private
| entities.
| camelboy wrote:
| few days ago, i tried to purchase a domain on godaddy, I didn't
| buy it as I had to get approval from my manager so I left it in
| the cart and that time I was using my cellphone. Then after 3
| days, I came back to godaddy through my PC and saw that the
| domain is now premium and they want amount close $3000 . I was
| kind of shocked. but then on my phone I noticed that item is
| still in my cart with the 20 dollar pricing, and I purchased, few
| days later godaddy came back and refund me the 20 dollar and took
| away the domain. One thing I learned is that never use a
| registrar search engine as they check domain with high search or
| interest and they immediately buy it before you.
| zimbatm wrote:
| I can't believe godaddy is still doing this. It should be
| illegal.
|
| In the future, use gandi.net or namecheap.com. They don't
| engage in such despicable practices.
| pwdisswordfish9 wrote:
| I can't believe people (professionals, at least) are still
| using GoDaddy. Their shenanigans are well-documented, so the
| only reason I can figure out why I keep running into these
| kinds of stories in places frequented by people who should
| know better is name recognition. GoDaddy is the McDonald's of
| domains. On second thought, Jiffy Lube may be a more apt
| comparison.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiffy_Lube#Controversy
| 0des wrote:
| Is this frontrunning?
| fbanon wrote:
| Yes, and it's a well-known practice of scummy registrars like
| godaddy.
| plainnoodles wrote:
| It is! Trading your own account in front of a client's order
| with knowledge of your client's order is, indeed,
| frontrunning!
|
| However, given domains are not securities and domain
| registrars are not FINRA members or registered securities
| broker-dealers, I don't think this is "frontrunning" in the
| sense that you're used to hearing the word.
|
| So who knows if it's even illegal, and even if it is, who
| knows what recourse anyone has about it, given how quasi-
| legal and international the ownership of domains is.
| camelboy wrote:
| yes, it is. I was thinking taking them to consumer protection
| court, but I realized it is not worth my time.
| 0des wrote:
| Someone has to take one for the team..
| ModernMech wrote:
| Godaddy has been doing this since forever. They burned me with
| this practice circa 2005. Back then I searched for a domain,
| and the next day they registered it and wanted $20 more for it
| -- nothing close to $3000! It's funny, they put up a website at
| the domain with a message that it was "Parked helpfully for my
| convenience." Amazing to see that since they were allowed to
| get away with it then, they've since taken an abusive practice
| and turned it into extortion.
| reginold wrote:
| Anyone here familiar with the newly launched Ethereum Name
| Service (ENS)? All the registrations are handled on the
| blockchain. Would this error be possible on ENS?
| rfd4sgmk8u wrote:
| ENS is purely a vanity service, like any other NFT.
|
| ENS would not have this problem, however, you might as well
| write a name on a piece of paper and never show anyone. It is
| not the same thing.
|
| ENS will never be resolvable via the global DNS namespace. Its
| like a parallel DNS namespace. I don't believe that any
| blockchain NS will ever marry with the global name resolution
| namespace. Handshake and Namecoin are alternatives too, and
| there was non-blockchain thing called NewNet that no longer
| exists.
|
| Globally resolvable names need to have registration details, so
| when you register "cocacola", Coke can sue you for trademark
| infringement. They need to be revocable.
| reginold wrote:
| Appreciate the perspective on this. When you say "ENS will
| never be resolvable via the global DNS namespace", is that a
| technical limitation or something else? I'm curious so
| learning about how it works (or doesn't!), sounds like you
| have a lot of experience.
| rfd4sgmk8u wrote:
| There is no reason technical that ENS could not run root
| .eth servers and have these in the global DNS namespace. It
| would be a centralized service with decentralized records.
|
| I'm saying it wont happen because they wont let it. Its a
| closed club, and its a big deal when new TLDs get added.
| Johnny ethereum isn't allowed in.
| bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
| This is part and parcel of participating in the centralized
| domain name system.
| tmaly wrote:
| I think it would be a good use of blockchain to find a way to
| solve this centralized control. The prices for a domain border
| on extortion.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| This is hardly a typical domain registration experience.
|
| Would be truly unfortunate if a hypothetical decentralized
| alternative had a similar bug that let someone else register
| and already-owned domain, as that bug would likely invalidate
| the entire structure of the registration and bring the whole
| system down as people exploited the vulnerability to steal
| every possible domain in a decentralized manner. At least this
| centralized solution can fix it and adapt.
| forty wrote:
| Absolutely. I'm not screaming that's it's unfair or anything.
| The good things about centralized systems like this is that
| there are rules and laws. If the ICANN rule says the registry
| can do that in this case, then fine, I won't fight. But I would
| like to make sure it's really the case.
| convolvatron wrote:
| this is part and parcel of having the ICANN model with
| competition between for-profit registries. Jon Postel wouldn't
| have been so mean.
| wyrm wrote:
| If they screwed up somehow, they're kind of obligated to fix it.
| Otherwise, they just stole somebody else's domain and let you
| register it.
|
| I would be a little skeptical. Make sure that the email _really
| is_ from your registrar. Also, it 's likely that "do nothing" is
| your best course of action, in any case. If the email is
| legitimate, there's nothing you can do to stop them. If it's a
| scam of some kind, you avoid increasing your exposure to risk.
| forty wrote:
| The thing I'm wondering is whether the registry is not trying
| to get the domain back for them (which would be possible given
| the domain).
|
| I cannot find any trace of the domain on the internet, so at
| least I don't think it was used. I don't know if there is some
| kind of way back machine for domain name records / whois ?
| bberenberg wrote:
| Have you checked a Whois history tool like
| https://research.domaintools.com/research/whois-history/ ?
| forty wrote:
| Interesting thanks. This does say there was activity on
| this domain before
| walrus01 wrote:
| the entire existence of the .io registry and the people running
| it, presently making money from it are highly suspicious, it's
| supposed to be for the benefit and use of the people who lived in
| what's now called the "british indian ocean territory" in the
| general area of diego garcia.
|
| this is a place from which the natives were evicted by force.
|
| I somehow doubt they're getting any financial benefit from it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia
|
| as a reminder, ethos capital are the amazing people who tried to
| "buy" .org a while back
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos_Capital
|
| If this doesn't fit the economics textbook definition of Rent
| Seeking, I don't know what does.
| 1cvmask wrote:
| If the Chinese did this the press would write about the
| genocide in Diego Garcia etc....
|
| The UN resolution (international norms???) and International
| Court of Justice (ICJ) is being violated by the UK and US:
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-mauritius-un-idUS...
| holduptho wrote:
| Hang on a second: how is the US violating anything here?
| You're roughly saying that the UK's error transmits to the US
| because they lawfully leased land to the US that they
| consider theirs.
|
| Of course the US is going to lobby to keep the base, and of
| course it's horrific that thousands were forcefully removed
| to build it (and the US should compensate for that), but any
| interpretation where the US is in international error here
| due to Mauritian sovereignty considerations is plainly
| transparent in its purpose (particularly in a comment that
| references China off the bat).
|
| That's the UK's problem. Notice the Mauritian prime minister
| in the very article you linked only discussed problems with
| the UK.
| walrus01 wrote:
| Perhaps it should be possible to condemn things like what
| happened to the Chagossians _and_ what 's presently ongoing
| with the Uyghur people simultaneously
| easrng wrote:
| https://unbuild.blog/2021/10/io/
| throw8932894 wrote:
| Do not register domains on some banana islands (IO is for Indian
| Ocean). With ".com" or national domain you would have a chance at
| court.
| igetspam wrote:
| I've had this happen during new TLD launches. I owned lap.top for
| about a day but so did a whole lot of people. I lost that race.
| You don't own a domain. You rent it and the registrar can take it
| back. They generally don't, outside of trademark issues, legal
| problems or race conditions but they can.
| forty wrote:
| In my case I actually own and control the domain (I'm in the
| whois and my website shows up in the browser)
| rfd4sgmk8u wrote:
| No, you rented it from the registrar. Nobody owns domains,
| one rents them for the temporary control over NS records. The
| registrar can take it away at their prerogative.
| robalfonso wrote:
| 2 Days ago management of .io registry was transfered from Afilias
| to Donuts (Due to an acquisition). It is likely that during that
| window you registered the domain and they are now cleaning up the
| issue. It may be your registrar took your registration and then
| when they went to actually process it the registry was down, so
| someone else got it during that period. It could be other things,
| however, the bottom line is that the domain was probably never
| yours and there is really not much to do here. It's bad timing
| and bad handling of a process on your registrars end.
| forty wrote:
| At least right now I control the domain. I think the registry
| messed up as they allowed my registration, not the registar.
|
| Thanks for the info on the migration, that could indeed explain
| this.
| funnyflamigo wrote:
| If you have control of it you _might_ actually be the one
| that nabbed it, and somebody else complained they couldn't
| manage it.
|
| If this is the case, under no circumstance tell your
| registrar you're okay with losing it and dig your heels HARD.
|
| Either way you should get a cert for it with the longest
| expiration you can ASAP while you control it ;)
| robalfonso wrote:
| I understand your sentiment here, but should the registry
| decide the domain is not theirs it will simply not be
| manageable from the registrar/buyer. All they do is update
| the management id to the new registrar and the registrant
| contact of the domain, no intervention is possible.
|
| I can tell you I've seen legal orders transferring a domain
| from one registrant to another, if the order has the
| registry named to take action, the domain kind of just goes
| poof, sure it's in your system but you can't do anything
| against it.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| > I can tell you I've seen legal orders transferring a
| domain from one registrant to another, if the order has
| the registry named to take action, the domain kind of
| just goes poof, sure it's in your system but you can't do
| anything against it.
|
| Then maybe the original poster should demand such a legal
| order? I doubt there exists one now given it's only been
| a couple days.
| robalfonso wrote:
| In this context it was court orders, usually over an
| ownership dispute between corporations. The legal fees
| etc, make it unlikely to be worth the hassle.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| Yeah I can totally see that. I guess in this case the OP
| could try to stand strong and refuse to go along without
| any sort of court order, but even in that case it's not
| like the OP can stop the registry from going through with
| the change. So really if the registry decides to do it
| anyway, then I guess the OP could try to pursue legal
| options. I guess maybe the domain would be worth it.
| shalomfriss wrote:
| I've purchased domains from GoDaddy and they reclaimed them,
| claiming that they sold them to me in error and that they had
| already been purchased. This is for multiple domains, within
| minutes of their release by the way.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Don't use GoDaddy, ever.
| gzer0 wrote:
| Unfortunately if you do not fully own your own ICANN registrar,
| for example, like Facebook [1], then your domain remains in the
| hands of the registrar; it doesn't matter what your WHOIS states.
|
| I've looked into this exact problem because I wanted to know,
| what it takes to _fully and completely_ own your own domain. The
| best way is to apply for an ICANN registrar accreditation which
| entails these requirements [2]: - US$3,500
| application fee, which is non-refundable regardless of whether
| the application is approved, denied, or withdrawn. -
| US$4,000 yearly accreditation fee due upon approval and each year
| thereafter. - $70,000 USD in liquid assets
|
| In the case of Facebook, they were able to receive an expedited
| approval since link [1] indicates that their company will not be
| buying nor selling any domains. It just exists for the sole
| purpose of owning the domain. Why did Facebook do this, you may
| ask?
|
| Well, social engineering. An Njal.la hosted domain was
| successfully transferred to Namecheap (through no fault of
| Njal.la) through forged German Court records [3]. So now, no one
| can socially engineer the domain away from FB and I suspect the
| vast majority of these companies.
|
| RIP. Looks like I won't be owning my own domain anytime soon.
|
| [1] https://registrarsec.com/
|
| [2]
| https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/financials-55-2012-02-...
|
| [3] https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8833/dark-fail-fake-
| court-...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-19 23:02 UTC)