17 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
17 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Any ideas on which domain SEARCH site I should use? (I used to use moniker, until...)...

by TimothyW
14 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Ok, I'll say it -- I am basically PARANOID.

When I search to see if a domain name is taken, I am paranoid that these 2 things might happen...

1) The site I am using to search with will *itself* register the name in ITS account, if I don't buy the name right there on the spot. Then that registrar will suddenly hold the name HOSTAGE for a much larger fee. It's never happened to me, but I HAVE heard that some sites DO this!!

2) The site I am using to search has been secretly hacked by someone so they can see what's being searched for, from the other side of the "glass." So, when I search for the name, another person (or hacker bot) is seeing the names I'm searching, in real-time, and is immediately registering them -- so I'm chasing my own tail so to speak.

THAT last fear is why I always used moniker -- I trusted them for that purpose. I KNOW they never used tactic #1, and I was always pretty sure no hackers were using tactic #2.

Now I can't use moniker any more -- they got bought out, and the new interface is a pure pile of UNUSABLE CRAP! (((sigh))) Another fine resource falling victim to "improvement."

Anyhow, anyone have recommendations on another site to use to search to see if a domain name is taken? A site you are SURE doesn't suffer from either one of the fears listed above?

Thanks in advance!

-- TW
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by TimothyW View Post

    1) The site I am using to search with will *itself* register the name in ITS account, if I don't buy the name right there on the spot. Then that registrar will suddenly hold the name HOSTAGE for a much larger fee. It's never happened to me, but I HAVE heard that some sites DO this!!
    For sure. A realistic concern. I know it only as a "well-known GoDaddy trick" (and am always astonished when GoDaddy enthusiasts - yes, there are one or two, I think maybe two - defend it!). I haven't actually heard of it happening with other registrars (but it might, and I don't know).

    Your second concern, I suspect, may be exaggerated and (perhaps more importantly) there perhaps isn't a way of knowing, anyway?

    I always use Namecheap. This doesn't actually answer your question, because I don't know, for sure, that none of those things can happen there, but I've bought probably 400 domains there over the last 5 years and I've never been less than happy with Namecheap.

    As a matter of general policy, though, it does no harm to "be ready to buy what you want, on the spot, when it's available"?

    (I hadn't heard about Moniker - interesting.)


    .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9448043].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
    Thanks for that. Note: I don't think moniker is using those tactics -- but I can't use them anymore since they changed their interface. It totally S-U-C-K-S ! (now)
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9448064].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Such actions are actually ILLEGAL! They not only violate fiduciary duty and several laws, but the UDRP ITSELF! It SPECIFICALLY forbids registering domain names to "SQUAT" on them and hold them "HOSTAGE". And of anyone on the planet, they apply 100 fold to the ones actually REGISTERING the names. If one had enough money, or press ability, and proved they searched for the domain when it wasn't registered, tried to register it soon afterwards, and found a top tier registrar, like godaddy, that did the first search then soon after owned it. that registrar, if they were smart, would sell it to you at the regular price or less.

    In GODADDY'S case, if this were proved in court, they could lose the domain name AND their ability to ever register names again, and possibly get a hefty fine, etc....! Of course, the problem is proof, and the ability to promote it enough to unseal the records and the evidence to prove it wasn't a hiccup or a coincidence. Of course, I was surprised by how little action was taken, by the "authorities" against verisign when they redirected traffic for all invalid hits.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9448207].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
    Nonsense.

    Immoral? Unethical? Sure.

    Illegal? You'll have to cite some sources for that. There is nothing illegal about it that I have ever seen. The domain market is highly unregulated. It is behavior like that which may change that fact in the years to come, but for now I wouldn't count on it.

    Like Alexa, I have never seen nor heard of cases of this happening at the registrar I use (eNom). I have also never had this problem with Whois Lookup, Domain Availability & IP Search - DomainTools

    I would steer clear of GD. I would also keep far away from all of the smaller operations that keep popping up. You never know what you will get with them.
    Signature
    Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9448244].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Jack Gordon View Post

      Nonsense.

      Immoral? Unethical? Sure.

      Illegal? You'll have to cite some sources for that. There is nothing illegal about it that I have ever seen. The domain market is highly unregulated. It is behavior like that which may change that fact in the years to come, but for now I wouldn't count on it.

      Like Alexa, I have never seen nor heard of cases of this happening at the registrar I use (eNom). I have also never had this problem with Whois Lookup, Domain Availability & IP Search - DomainTools

      I would steer clear of GD. I would also keep far away from all of the smaller operations that keep popping up. You never know what you will get with them.
      https://www.icann.org/resources/page...-2012-02-25-en

      Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy

      The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) has been adopted by ICANN-accredited registrars in all gTLDs (.aero, .asia, .biz, .cat, .com, .coop, .info, .jobs, .mobi, .museum, .name, .net, .org, .pro, .tel and .travel). Dispute proceedings arising from alleged abusive registrations of domain names (for example, cybersquatting) may be initiated by a holder of trademark rights. The UDRP is a policy between a registrar and its customer and is included in registration agreements for all ICANN-accredited registrars.
      It is UNCONSCIONABLE that an organization that does things as have been described here gets special information and special rights. It is generally forbidden. It is akin to insuder trading in the stockmarket. THAT is done all the time ALSO, but every now and then they get caught and are prosecuted. Like restaurants that are NOT allowed to have all the vermin they are often shown to have on kitchen nightmares, etc...

      Yeah, there may not be that many registrars that are where enom, and godaddy are. MOST are basically cloaked versions of one of the higher registrars. And ENOM(ENOM), and WWD(GODADDY) are among the bigger ones in the US. Anyway, MOST of those that connect in such a way can intercept and control things like is discussed here. WWD is MOSTLY not that way, but last I knew they offered an API where you COULD. And ENOM does as well. TUCOWS, SRSPLUS, and many others do as well.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9448387].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    I can see how you could demonstrate a registrar buys up domains that they discover through domain searches on their site, but I'm not sure how you'd prove a registrar doesn't do that.

    Haven't said that, I have used Dynadot for probably 10 years or so and have never had that happen. They even offer a "buyers remorse" period. If you don't want a domain you buy, you have I think three days to get a refund. I've never used it, but if you made a typo when you buy a domain that could come in handy.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9448357].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
    This is not the same thing as cybersquatting.

    I understand the instinct to lump them together, but I just don't think it would hold up to a legal challenge.
    Signature
    Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9448839].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
    I believe cyber squatting is buying up names with *brand names* or celebrity's names or names of movies and tv shows, etc. Copyrighted stuff or registered trade mark stuff. Holding those kinds of names hostage is cyber squatting.

    Buying up "regular" type names, then selling them to the highest offer is not cyber squatting, any more than buying up houses, and selling them to the highest offer is "unethical." It's done all the time -- it's capitalism. Buying low, and selling high. - And taking a RISK doing it.

    -- TW
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9448884].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TimothyW View Post

      I believe cyber squatting is buying up names with *brand names* or celebrity's names or names of movies and tv shows, etc. Copyrighted stuff or registered trade mark stuff. Holding those kinds of names hostage is cyber squatting.
      ...

      Buying low, and selling high. - And taking a RISK doing it.

      -- TW
      Well, there is the term cyber(electronic) and squatting(sitting on it for control). Earlier it WAS clearer and not connected to trademarks.

      As for the low/high and RISK? They actually KNOW somebody was looking at it, limiting risk. THEY don't care about risk though, because the risk is on the potential buyer. There are timeframes, for higher level registrars, where doing this is *****FREE*****! So WHERE is the risk? The ONLY risk I see is that the BUYER may jump on it and pay a higher price, possibly a MUCH higher price.

      As for the home analogy? This is like a real estate agent needing a trip somewhere and because a friend gives it to them, the agent tells them about someone wanting to buy a $600K home for a million dollars, the friend asks for the keys to the home, the realestate agent talks the buyer down to $500K, and the friend collects the 1 million, and pays the $500K. If the deal fell through, the friend and agent lost no money. They have locked up the home though, and the buyer pays twice what the home is worth never knowing that they were taken.

      Or it is like insider trading. A biotech that has a bad history just files for a new unique drug. The trader knows they will be approved, while the market assumes they won't. He buys at the lowest point(If market sentiment is against such a company, they tend to drop a LOT before an approval attempt) and right after the upswing on the public notice(If approved for an apparently worthwhile drug, there can be a bug jump) he sells. HEY, it seems you can now do this remarkably fast. That last one is akin to what martha stewart got thrown in jail for.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9449119].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Lance K
        I use Register.com and get along great with it.
        Signature
        "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
        ~ Zig Ziglar
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9449206].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Well, there is the term cyber(electronic) and squatting(sitting on it for control). Earlier it WAS clearer and not connected to trademarks.

        As for the low/high and RISK? They actually KNOW somebody was looking at it, limiting risk. THEY don't care about risk though, because the risk is on the potential buyer. There are timeframes, for higher level registrars, where doing this is *****FREE*****! So WHERE is the risk? The ONLY risk I see is that the BUYER may jump on it and pay a higher price, possibly a MUCH higher price.

        As for the home analogy? This is like a real estate agent needing a trip somewhere and because a friend gives it to them, the agent tells them about someone wanting to buy a $600K home for a million dollars, the friend asks for the keys to the home, the realestate agent talks the buyer down to $500K, and the friend collects the 1 million, and pays the $500K. If the deal fell through, the friend and agent lost no money. They have locked up the home though, and the buyer pays twice what the home is worth never knowing that they were taken.

        Or it is like insider trading. A biotech that has a bad history just files for a new unique drug. The trader knows they will be approved, while the market assumes they won't. He buys at the lowest point(If market sentiment is against such a company, they tend to drop a LOT before an approval attempt) and right after the upswing on the public notice(If approved for an apparently worthwhile drug, there can be a bug jump) he sells. HEY, it seems you can now do this remarkably fast. That last one is akin to what martha stewart got thrown in jail for.

        Steve
        Yep. You and I know it is wrong.

        But still, not illegal.

        I suppose you could try and go after them under RICO or something like that, but I doubt you would get anywhere.
        Signature
        Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9449298].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
      Originally Posted by TimothyW View Post

      I believe cyber squatting is buying up names with *brand names* or celebrity's names or names of movies and tv shows, etc. Copyrighted stuff or registered trade mark stuff. Holding those kinds of names hostage is cyber squatting.

      Buying up "regular" type names, then selling them to the highest offer is not cyber squatting, any more than buying up houses, and selling them to the highest offer is "unethical." It's done all the time -- it's capitalism. Buying low, and selling high. - And taking a RISK doing it.

      -- TW

      I was talking about when individuals do it -- not registrars.
      When registrars do it, that should not be allowed.
      Analogy: "The expectation of privacy" If it's something that
      the average consumer wouldn't expect to be done, then it should NOT be allowed.
      Then it becomes more fraud or trickery -- Preying on people
      who don't (and SHOULDN'T) expect it to be done (to them).
      When a woman goes into a changing room at Macy's, she reasonably
      expects there are no cameras in there.
      When someone goes on a registrar's site to see if a name is taken or not,
      he should reasonably expect that the very action of searching the name will NOT
      result in the name being suddenly REGISTERED to the registrar whose page he's
      using to search the name!

      That is NOT true of someone who buys a "normal" name (not trade marked, etc.), with the intention of "sitting on it" until someone wants to buy it -- then charging more that what they paid. It's like phone numbers -- they are up for grabs, if you can pay the "holding costs" while waiting for someone who wants the name -- totally LEGIT practice (and business model).

      That's where the RISK comes in. I don't know the stats/ratios -- but I'm sure one must buy 10 names for every name that actually sells (guessing). I also know I see A LOT of names for sale (from individuals) for $1. I guess they are trying to unload the "losers" and stop paying the associated "holding costs" -- $9/year per name. Paying those holding costs is part of the risk too.

      You can even LEASE them out -- I know one team who "cornered the market" on a particular niche re: domain names. They are now leasing them out (1,000s of names) to the tune of $250,000 per MONTH (total). Totally legit.

      -- TW
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9449762].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SJL
    This is actualy common enough to have a name, it's called front running. Network Solutions got sued over this few years ago Network Solutions, ICANN Sued Over Domain Front Running | TechCrunch

    Personally I haven't ever had a problem like this.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9453341].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
    Notably, they settled and were thus spared the humiliation of admitting any wrongdoing.

    In any case, this is not quite that. Where Netsol was systematically "protecting" every domain search and extorting a higher fee for subsequent registrations before letting them drop at the end of the five day "tasting period", the allegations in this thread are for those registrars who cherry pick searched domains that may have worth, then registering them for the full year and attempting to resell them on the aftermarket.

    Nitpicky? Maybe.

    At least the former has been litigated and has caused some policy consequences.

    The latter is great fodder for a lawsuit, if anyone cares to do the work to prove it.
    Signature
    Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9453400].message }}

Trending Topics