4 ms·

You're saying a domain ownership should be revoked based on a third party having bad defaults and the owner talking up the value of the domain?

zamadatix 7y ago
Certainly, it's a squatted domain the owner has never had any interest in actually using and is now no longer even interested in holding. If what is in the article is true then I don't even think Microsoft should necessarily own the domain let alone put it out for public bid to see if a good guy is willing to pay more than a bad guy could make off of it. The guy even claims "I don’t really need the money. I’m basically auctioning off a chemical waste dump because I don’t want to pass it on to my kids and burden them with it." so revocation and locking seems perfect, it's exactly what he wants.
- SahAssar 7y ago
  You're putting up two completely different arguments here: 1. The domain was squatted and the owner did not put it to good use. 2. Because of a third party the domain is so toxic that it should be disabled for eternity. Those are very different reasons, which one warrants a revocation? The first one is true for very many domains and probably a large reason that ICANN and registrys have large revenues. The second one is probably unprecedented under a gTLD. If this was under a cTLD I would agree that it would be okay, if accordance under that countries laws and a proper legal process, but under a gTLD I think these measures should not be taken.
  - zamadatix 7y ago
    Two arguments yes but they aren't presented independent as you pose. Scenarios where 1 xor 2 is true is a much more complicated conversation that we don't need to get into in this case. Is there a general solution to those scenarios independently? Maybe but I don't know for sure in that case. What I do know is an inactive domain the owner wants to get rid of because it's a massive burden due to being so toxic should be revoked and locked not sold to the highest bidder. I don't know what we should do if it were an active domain and the security question were posed or what we should do about squatting in general (though I will say the money from the sale does not go to ICANN or the registrar).
    - SahAssar 7y ago
      Scenarios 1 & 2 have very different rationales for being applied to a gTLD though. Scenario 1's problem (domain squatting) has been the fact for basically forever for all TLD's. Scenario 2's problem would be pretty novel to fix at least for gTLD's, so it doesn't really matter as long as Scenario 2 is in the game. I'd also be interested if he said he would willingly give up the domain for free if it would not pose a security risk? From my read he still wants to sell it to the highest bidder.
- ryanlol 7y ago
  > the owner has never had any interest in actually using What are you basing this on? Did you even try to research the history of this domain? https://www.haven2.com/index.php/archives/corpcom-registry https://www.haven2.com/index.php/archives/corpcom-registry
013a 7y ago
Yes. Its a combination of several things, and I stress "extreme circumstances"; this qualifies. The domain clearly would have a broad security impact if it fell into the wrong hands. It is generic. It is being squatted, rather than actively used in any value-generating capacity. The owner has demonstrated poor stewardship of the domain. This person does not have the right to compromise the security of millions of people just because he was early to registering a domain name. Domain name registrations are not a Right; they're a Privilege granted to registrants by custodians of the internet that we all help build, secure, and maintain. Its not enough that Microsoft simply buy the domain (though this would be a fine outcome). ICANN should just shut it down. Revoke the registration and refuse to issue it again. We've proven that there are hundreds of thousands of clients sending personal data to this domain; it simply should not be in the hands of anyone, period.

zamadatix 7y ago

Certainly, it's a squatted domain the owner has never had any interest in actually using and is now no longer even interested in holding. If what is in the article is true then I don't even think Microsoft should necessarily own the domain let alone put it out for public bid to see if a good guy is willing to pay more than a bad guy could make off of it. The guy even claims "I don’t really need the money. I’m basically auctioning off a chemical waste dump because I don’t want to pass it on to my kids and burden them with it." so revocation and locking seems perfect, it's exactly what he wants.

SahAssar 7y ago
You're putting up two completely different arguments here: 1. The domain was squatted and the owner did not put it to good use. 2. Because of a third party the domain is so toxic that it should be disabled for eternity. Those are very different reasons, which one warrants a revocation? The first one is true for very many domains and probably a large reason that ICANN and registrys have large revenues. The second one is probably unprecedented under a gTLD. If this was under a cTLD I would agree that it would be okay, if accordance under that countries laws and a proper legal process, but under a gTLD I think these measures should not be taken.
- zamadatix 7y ago
  Two arguments yes but they aren't presented independent as you pose. Scenarios where 1 xor 2 is true is a much more complicated conversation that we don't need to get into in this case. Is there a general solution to those scenarios independently? Maybe but I don't know for sure in that case. What I do know is an inactive domain the owner wants to get rid of because it's a massive burden due to being so toxic should be revoked and locked not sold to the highest bidder. I don't know what we should do if it were an active domain and the security question were posed or what we should do about squatting in general (though I will say the money from the sale does not go to ICANN or the registrar).
  - SahAssar 7y ago
    Scenarios 1 & 2 have very different rationales for being applied to a gTLD though. Scenario 1's problem (domain squatting) has been the fact for basically forever for all TLD's. Scenario 2's problem would be pretty novel to fix at least for gTLD's, so it doesn't really matter as long as Scenario 2 is in the game. I'd also be interested if he said he would willingly give up the domain for free if it would not pose a security risk? From my read he still wants to sell it to the highest bidder.
ryanlol 7y ago
> the owner has never had any interest in actually using What are you basing this on? Did you even try to research the history of this domain? https://www.haven2.com/index.php/archives/corpcom-registry https://www.haven2.com/index.php/archives/corpcom-registry

013a 7y ago

Yes. Its a combination of several things, and I stress "extreme circumstances"; this qualifies. The domain clearly would have a broad security impact if it fell into the wrong hands. It is generic. It is being squatted, rather than actively used in any value-generating capacity. The owner has demonstrated poor stewardship of the domain. This person does not have the right to compromise the security of millions of people just because he was early to registering a domain name. Domain name registrations are not a Right; they're a Privilege granted to registrants by custodians of the internet that we all help build, secure, and maintain. Its not enough that Microsoft simply buy the domain (though this would be a fine outcome). ICANN should just shut it down. Revoke the registration and refuse to issue it again. We've proven that there are hundreds of thousands of clients sending personal data to this domain; it simply should not be in the hands of anyone, period.