Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Considering you can easily change the default nameserver settings, I don't see how this is an issue. Really, your just trying to imagine problems. Maybe you'd be so kind as to direct our attention to when this specific issue has caused problems for Name.com customers in the past?



A ton of domains have been brought to UDRP for showing parking ads. Some domains might have been legal except the ads infringed on someone else's IP. Imagine owning apple.com for your apple store but apple computer ads started appearing contextually. You're screwed through no fault of your own.

At least with domain parking companies, you get the profit, name.com is plain old screwing you over.


Care to share some of these domains then? A link would be helpful.


"The Panel also believes that in using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to websites that host links to external websites, including websites of Complainant’s competitors, the Respondent has registered and used the domain names in bad faith"

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003...

There is a starting point.


The argument here is that this was intentional, not unintentional. Nothing in here leads me to believe that someone claimed the domains and just happened to leave them dormant on a registrar. Rather, they setup the domains with the expressed intent to redirect internet users.

This is not what is being argued against Names.

You say it's a starting point. Considering it has no relation whatsoever, I fail to see where it can lead. My searching has turned up nothing. Until someone presents otherwise, I consider this entire argument and article FUD.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: