Domain Goldrush Part 3 - Wild Wild West
|
 |
Visited: 1642 |
| Not rated |
|
|
|
|
by Lee Hodgson August 12, 2003
|
The expiring
domains goldrush, previously described
in Part 1 of this series, is over - at least as far as the average
domain speculator is concerned. As recently as six months ago anyone with
a PC, a browser, and a good idea of when a hot domain name was going to
expire, had a good chance of grabbing it, and often they'd make a small
fortune in the process. But these sorts of grabs are fast becoming a distant
Internet memory.
Big Business
Strikes Back!
So what's
happened to change the situation in such a short time? Big business, that's
what. ICANN registrars and assorted "partners" have woken up
to the booming expiring domains industry, and are doing everything possible
to get in on the act, especially since many now struggle to cope with
the low margins in their normal registration business. But this transformation
from a small cottage industry into something every ICANN registrar wants
to get involved in has produced what can only be described as a "wild
west" atmosphere.
The Dawn of
a New Era
Consider
what transpired on June 11th, 2001. There was a massive "drop"
of expiring domains. Somewhere in the region of 40,000 names became available
for registration, including many valuable 3-letter dot coms and generic
one-word names. Six months ago most of these names, which could be worth
millions of dollars on the secondary market, would have quietly been picked
up by savvy domain pros. But what happened on the 11th shows just how
much the atmosphere has changed, and how enormous tensions are developing
between ICANN registrars.
The dot com
registry, run by Verisign Inc., has rules that stipulate that each ICANN
registrar can only open a certain number of server connections to the
registry. In theory these rules should prevent any one registrar from
monopolizing the resources of the shared registry system.
But at 6.30
AM on the 11th June, all hell broke loose.
At least
one ICANN registrar (possibly more) allowed its customers to open far
more than the permitted number of server connections. The result was chaos.
Other ICANN registrars were almost entirely "shut out" of the
registry. One company that registers names on behalf of clients said it
could only open 2.5% of its normal server connections. It was the domain
name equivalent of a DOS (Denial of Service) attack. But in this case,
the perpetrator of the DOS attack profited by grabbing thousands of valuable
names, while all the other registrars and their customers were left starting
at error messages.
So what can
be done to prevent this kind of thing happening again? Dan Halloran, the
Chief Registrar Liaison at ICANN
said he was "confident that the registry operator has in place the
policies and technology that it needs to ensure fair access. Any repeated
or intentional abuse will undoubtedly be dealt with very strongly by the
registry operator."
Others don't
share his faith in Verisign's desire or ability to stamp down on this
kind of abuse. One industry source put it like this: "The Registry
only reprimanded them. There are no teeth to the Registry's reaction,
and thus no disincentive against another occurrence." And he's right.
All that happened was that the offending registrars received e-mails from
Verisign asking them to close down some connections. But by the time they
did, the damage had already been done. The names had been grabbed and
other registrars were left counting the cost.
Against this
backdrop of lax enforcement of the registry rules coupled with what seems
to be a complete absence of real penalties, the market is doing what the
market does most effectively: taking over. Don't be surprised if other
registrars begin "accidentally" over-stepping their allotted
connections in the hope of grabbing names. If they don't, they'll have
to answer to their "partners". Who are these partners? High-volume
speculators who pay registrars in order to get preferential treatment
over all other customers of the registrar.
The End of
Equal Access
This in-fighting
between ICANN registrars is all very interesting, but what of it? How
does it affect end users? Well here's the killer: ICANN registrars are
starting to make announcements about giving special privileges to their
partners during drops. Registrars are now formally handing over their
most precious asset, their connection to the registry, in exchange for
hard cash. They claim it won't affect 'normal' customers but this claim
seems hard to justify, even ludicrous. Here's how one registrar advertised
their service:
"After the club member lists have been run we will open up
again to the rest of the community."
Does that
seem like fair and equal access to you? If you are a "normal"
customer of one of the registrars who offer these services, and you attempt
to register a name during the drop, it's very simple: you won't be able
to. All the bandwidth will have been allocated to VIP customers.
Bear in mind
that registrars were accredited by ICANN precisely for the purpose of
democratically serving all customers. Also note that this service is going
to cost around $1000 per month. Who can afford that kind of money except
domain speculators? Currently the only affordable service for people who
want in on some deleted name action is SnapNames and their Snap-Back service.
They charge $49 per domain name, and offer refunds for names they fail
to grab. That is reasonable. Charging $1000 per month to rent out bandwidth
is a whole different ball-game.
What Next?
The way things
are going, the next logical step is for registrars to abandon their "normal"
customers completely, and just catering to speculators. VIPRegistrar.com
anyone?
So the next
time you want to register a domain name and the registration system takes
forever to respond, you might want to glance at the clock. It could well
be 6.30 AM in New York, and this time's been "booked in advance"
by someone with more money than you. Welcome to the new frontier - the
domain name wild wild west.
Article provided
exclusively by DomainGuru. No reprints are allowed unless expressly stated
in writing. |