Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC

Henry Linneweh linneweh at
Sat Jan 23 21:11:24 UTC 1999

I have personally seen charges as high as $3000.00 to recover a domain
name from a speculator. I believe such prices gouging is a rip-off on the
face value of it, and that it actually is harmful and harassing to a firms

Henry R. Linneweh

Jamie Norwood wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 05:01:13PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > At 02:37 PM 1/22/1999 -0600, Phil Howard wrote:
> > >Since many speculators actually do not pay, the claim can stand up very well.
> >
> > But they do pay. They get money sent to Internic sooner in the case of a
> > lapsed registration. [or they motivate people to pay before they lapse]
> > They get people to purchase domains they might not otherwise purchase, or
> > that they might not otherwise purchase NOW.
> I don't see how this is true, unless I am missing something. They register a
> domain, and charge, say, $100 for this. Since, to make a profit, they would
> have to charge more than InterNIC. Now, someone going for a domain held like
> this is likely gone looking for that domain, not the other way around.
> So, say we have a domain, We really have 4 scenarios:
> 1) Noone ever wants it or buys it.
> 2) End-user wants it, registers with Internic.
> 3) Speculator puts in a template on it and doesn't pay unless they get a
>    buyer. No buyer comes, it is recycled. Cost to speculator: $0. InterNIC
>    impact? A server usage that they never get compensated for.
> 4) Speculator buys it and sells it to end-user for $100, using part of that
>    to pay InterNIC and part as profit. InterNIC gets payed and is happy,
>    but end-user pays $30 more than they would have if the speculator
>    never found it (scenario 2).
> Now, as I see it, there is NO GOOD that comes from the speculator. Since
> in reality they do this for hundreds, if not more, domains, and I am willing
> to bet they sell at most 10% of the domains they register, they are adding
> a high burden to InterNIC's servers, with no return. The domains would
> sell just as easily without the speculator, and InterNIC would not have
> to copensate for hundred of domain creations that they will .never. see
> payment for. The speculator, of course, makes out the best; they have no
> overhead, and make pure profit. Pretty sweet deal, maybe I should try it!
> >
> > The costs of the non-completed registrations is trivial. So speculators
> > make a net-profit for NSI.
> See above. The net-profit they claim to offer is proft Internic would get
> just as well without them, and without the server overhead of a few hundred
> domains that will never be paid for.
> >
> > > But if the crunch of templates is blocking _my_ couple of
> > >templates from getting processed in under a week, then I really do want
> > >them to apply some temporary fix now to _this_ system so that do have the
> > >breathing room to put a better system into place.
> >
> > Except that you (and everyone) get worse service after the proposed
> > changes. It will take everyone longer to get domains registered. And you
> > will have less information that you need to work (like on-hold status).
> > [point gun at foot, pull trigger]
> Someone proposed the concept of having accounts with them, where your
> billing info is on file so that you could register, and be billed that
> way, and still keep the benefits of both pre-pay and post-pay systems.
> >
> > >This war has probably resulted in "registration spam" where the speculator
> > >submits repeated templates, perhaps once per day, to re-register that domain
> > >hoping to narrow the window in which it is available to others.
> >
> > This makes no sense. I don't believe they re-register the same domain the
> > next day. Once registered, its good for at least 30 days, and the creation
> > date is on the record.  Re-registering sooner than creation + 30 wouldn't
> > have any effect unless NSI starts trying to ignore speculator
> > registrations. Then I could see them trying to register it again the next
> > day with a different name. But if that is the case, then NSI caused the
> > flood by their own stupidity.  That cannot be blamed on speculators.
> Why wouldn't they, if they don't know when a domain will expire? What cost
> is it to them, who likely have nice little scripts that do all the work
> anyway. They have no reason .not. to do so.
> > >The costs to speculators is on par with the costs to spammers.  Computers
> > make
> > >it easy to do.
> >
> > Actually, all you are saying is that the cost of an email message is on par
> > with the cost of a database transaction.  I'll agree, and won't argue spam
> > costs, because a bunch of us promised not to. While the comparision to spam
> > is very obvious in many ways, please don't make spam comparisons. We can
> > argue this without reference to spam.  Enough said about that.
> Agreed.
> >
> > Computers make it easy for NSI, too.   $35.00 pays for a lot of computer
> > cycles.  There really can be hundreds of thousands of misses per one good
> > registration.
> It .could., but does it?
> > Not having delayed/canceled payment, immediate registration hurts everyone,
> > including me.  When I sell a web-host, they want it up today. I suppose if
> > everyone else has to wait 30 days, it won't be any worse than, say leased
> > line delays, and if everyone has the same constraint, the playing field is
> > level, so it shouldn't cost business. [actually, thats not true, since
> > selling something sooner means more revenue in a year--that's why we have
> > those marketing/sales folks. They get people to buy things now instead of
> > next month.  That makes a big difference.]
> See above. Give InterNIC a nice deposit to be allowed to pre-pay. No deposit,
> no reg until they have the money.
> > And you are complaining about delays. Presumably, everyone experiences the
> > same delays.  Yet, you propose increasing the delays, and then that still
> > won't stop speculators.  So what is the point? How is the system improved?
> > It isn't.
> But I agree, while it won't stop them, it will at least make them contribute.
> I don't consider it contribution when they have extremely little out-of-pocket
> expenses and a high amount of profit.  Make them pay for .every. domain they
> register, and I don't care if they resell it. Also, when you think about it,
> niw they can register a few hundred domains at no cost, unless someone buys
> it from them. But if to register those same 300, say, domains, will cost
> them $2100, they will be a lot more hesitant, since it would be very easy
> if you are unlucky to loose a couple thousand dollars.
> >
> > But then, speculators are just a scapegoat. By definition, eliminating the
> > scapegoat doesn't fix the problem. It just diverts attention from the more
> > embarrasing, real problem. That's how I conclude they are just a scapegoat.
> The best scapegoats are the people who really are problems. But making them
> go away won't clear or hide all the problems, and it will be easier to move
> forward with fixing the other problems when they have one less excuse to
> use on us.
> > >It's certainly convenient to pay later.  But it's not that great of a
> > >difference to me.
> >
> > Then why are you complaining that it takes weeks to register a domain?
> > Clearly, if these so-called anti-speculation changes are made, it will
> > always takes weeks to register a domain.  You are shooting yourself in the
> > foot because you are afraid someone might step on your toe.
> Again, combine the two. Any ISP who is that worried should have no trouble
> keeping a $1000 account with Internic for domains. And even that much is
> assuming you sign up bunches of domains every day. Real people should need
> less. There are solutions that will work. I, personally, would rather
> pay by credit card and add a few hours to the time, than keep domain
> scalpers and wait a week or more.
> >
> >               --Dean
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >            Plain Aviation, Inc                  dean at
> >            LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Jamie
> Who likely should have remained lurking, but is tired and cranky.

More information about the NANOG mailing list