How do the "frontrunners" get info on the domains people are considering registering, though?
The same way Netsol is, of course!
Thanks for your comments .
Cynthia - This is what we believe "Due to no fault of registrars, the Front Runners purchase search data from Internet Service Providers and/or registries and then taste those names."
Jon,
We dont' sell search info and our search is secure.
Shashi
Hi Shashi,
I have to disagree with the reasoning you use. You say:
"we have started protecting all domain name searches at Network Solutions by holding the searched domains for our customers for a short period of time before releasing them. This gives our customers the opportunity to register names later without fear that the name will be registered by a “Front Runner.”"
All this "protection" is doing is trapping the possible sale for network solutions on a term that has shown a bit of interest by somebody. You may not be grabbing the domain for the traditional "front running" purpose of tasting, but rather for a registration that only network solutions can give because you trapped it. It's still a form of front running.
Regards,
Chris
Thanks for responding Chris. This measure is geared for our customers. It gives them a chance to look for domains consider if it
’s what they want and then have an opportunity to register it.
You guys are a bunch of crooks. You'll never get a cent from me again.
Shashi, if Network Solutions is truly doing this with the customer's best interest in mind, I believe they made a huge mistake and I suggest you rethink it.
But I don't buy it. I don't think NS is doing it to protect their customers or what's in their best interest. I think NS is doing it to hold folks hostage if they had the misfortune of performing a search with the over priced Network Solutions. Once they get to checkout and see the outrageous price for a registration that should be under $10, I'm sure many folks try another registrar only to find out their domain was snapped up by a unscrupulous service.
It would be nice to one day see NS stop preying upon the new and unsuspecting folks coming to the web.
Regards,
Chris
If Network Solutions is really sure about the security of its own system (all the way up to the top registrars like VeriSign), and as you say, if you are really caring for your customers and not pushing your overpriced registration service, do the right thing, and simply enable SSL on your server.
That will prevent ISP or anybody else from sniffing the searches and will have a devastating impact on front runners that this scam does not---they can still "taste" the domain after 5 days, using their automated tools, right?
This simple technological measure would have done far more than what your back-handed gimmick could have possibly done. And unless you really want me to think that there is no one at NetworkSolutions that could think up stuffs that an amateur sysadmin can, well, your argument holds no water.
A correction to my own comment: I see that your webserver is, of course, configured to use SSL.
Let me correct what I said, and say, "Do the right thing and simply enable SSL by default for the WHOIS searches on your website." It's a simple redirect/rewrite stuff that any commercial-grade web server ought to be able to do.
Can you please tell your employer that they just lost three customers and 13 domain names which were transferred out from there!
We should garner support and get ICANN to ban this abominable practice! Grrrrrr
SO SO SO SO SO bad pratices. No ethic. And you are a toy of NSI. Why you defend this practices. Jerk.
I think the purpose of this idea is to ensure that, after making a search, the only way to register the domain is through NS.
So, as this is an immoral commercial practice, I will never work with NS.
So you're not front runners because ... you say you're not?
You snatch up a domain name for 5 days, and only sell it via your store; but, you say you do this only for the customers protection, right?
Your argument breaks down because you're not protecting the customer. You present _every_ would-be NetSol customer the opportunity to purchase the domain.
Plus, you plaster the domain name with a landing page advertising your service. So, not only do you lock a customer into purchasing a domain from NetSol, you also advertise your service on the domain!
Oh, and domains that get some traffic off the bat? Slashdot noticed you guys charge $35 for those domains.
So, not only are you front runners, you're domain squatters.
Of course, I didn't expect anything less from NetSol, given their horrible record of corporate abuse.
And Sashi, you're a scumbag for being NetSol's corporate mouthpiece.
you're a fucking stupid Bellamkonda, get a life and stop to trick your customers.
I see the trolls have made their way over here. 
Although I can see how a person could get rather irritated at having to wait several days to register elsewhere, I believe their explanation of why they are doing what they are doing is sincere for the most part. There may be a slight marketing angle on it, but I do believe this practice WILL help protect people against front-running.
The far-left ideologues getting up on their soap-boxes is always amusing though. Flame on! :P
I don't think there's one single person that will believe this tactic is used in good faith.
Even if what you're saying is true the fact is that if somebody looks up a domain on your system then that lookup shouldn't be intercepted by a third-party. If you don't sell lists then how is it that anybody looking up a domain could have that information leaked? Worst-case Network Solutions should be using SSL on their servers, but I still don't believe that this is a real problem.
Worse - if somebody looks up a domain on your server it's still as at-risk from sales to yourself as it was before. So again, what's the problem and how does this fix it?
Thanks everyone for commenting. I have collected a lot of information from all the sites/forums where this issue is being discussed and passed the info within Network Solutions. Will provide a updated post today.
Nice job staying civil Shashi. Too bad others can't do the same while expressing their opinion.
Shashi - What is the time period before the domain is released?
I have to agree with the others. This appears to be a very unethical business practice. We will make sure to never search for open domains via NS.
Hey Sashi, just discovered your blog from this.
I don't get the overreaction against NetSol. Either a registrar steps in and reserves a domain that someone is interested in at THEIR regular price, or they leave it alone and an actual Front Runner comes in and registers it and resells it at a humongous price.
What would someone rather do, pay $34.95 to NetSol, or $990 to a domainer? Trust me, as a one-time victim of a Front Runner, I think it's a great idea and I'm proud of it.
"Either a registrar steps in and reserves a domain that someone is interested in at THEIR regular price, or they leave it alone and an actual Front Runner comes in and registers it and resells it at a humongous price."
Possibly because that *doesn't* actually happen. I've never once seen that happen.
If it does happen I'd be asking how it is that people are seeing the domains people are searching for. Sure if it's a site that you shouldn't trust anyway it might happen - but at a 'trustable' provider like Network Solutions?
I updated my post with the official word on the changes we are making after listening to all the comments. Thanks for chipping in and providing feedback.
Shashi.
To me, what your official response (at www.shashi.name (apparently there's no link to that page from here, and your homepage doesn't link to that; in case anyone was just tracking this comment page like I am)) says is this:
1. NetworkSolutions will not stop registering domains that were not actually registered through them (merely searched through them, although you are not limiting the scope to just website, not all your WHOIS server).
2. You will not implement the simplest solution (defaulting encrypted connection for the website search) that will stop whatever concern you have for people getting their domain names stolen under them in 10, 20 minutes.
3. You will still put up websites, regardless of how indirectly (for example and for next 5 days, see terranovakyu.com), that will let competitors of original searcher, domain squatters and front runners know that they can register the domain ahead of the searcher at NetworkSolutions.
The most positive thing about the official response was that you will be "making enhancements" that would address "some of the concerns". I couldn't be more vague about the only positive thing that you are doing if I tried. Exactly what enhancements are you making? I admit that announcing the solution may diminish its effect (especially if the solution is not very effective to begin with), but can you at least say exactly which problem it's designed to fix?
I don't get the overreaction against NetSol.
Same reason when others "overreact" against parties who do what they feel is a crime against humanity. :P
It just so happens many people just don't care to understand how and why these things are happening. I for one can certainly understand why NetSol's doing this.
If anything, though, they could've at least posted about this on their site somewhere before resorting to this practice. I saw it's on their FAQ, so there's a start.
At some point, however, this might become a cost-prohibitive move. People are using NetSol's service to put in domain names bearing trademarks, and it might anger a potentially unreasonable one.
Why is it that after you finally release the hostaged domain name, only seconds later is it snatched by another frontrunning party? Selling the info to 3rd parties much? Or are you going to spin it and make it seem they just really lucky?
Customer's best interest my eye. Another profiteering scandal masked to look like customer "protection".
Why is it that after you finally release the hostaged domain name, only seconds later is it snatched by another frontrunning party?
Uh, that's the point of what NetSol's doing. Problem is those other tasters, front runners, or whatever you want to call them might be taking advantage of this.
Whether you believe what they said or not is apparently not their issue. Then again, no one's required to believe or agree.
"Nice job staying civil Shashi. Too bad others can't do the same while expressing their opinion."
I agree with Chris - Shashi is trying to make timely information available in a professional manner on his blog. Some of these comments are just ridiculous.
"Shashi is trying to make timely information available in a professional manner on his blog. Some of these comments are just ridiculous."
On the other hand, some of these comments are well justified and not yet answered. Let's stop with these unspecified "some"s, shan't we? If you won't, here are some more.
What you describe as "information", some would describe it as a corporate spin on an obvious wrong-doing.
What you describe as "professional manner", some would describe it as corporate-approved manner (well, to Shashi's credit, he didn't try to hide it).
What you describe as "timely", some (perhaps a paranoid person) would describe as "quickly enough to throw off potential investigator and officials until this practice (or its variant with the same spirit and intent) can be better hidden."
On the whole, sure, let's give some credit to Shashi (esp. for not moderating comments on this thread, as far as I can see), but I don't think anything was said here about NetworkSolutions that was not well justified and very much provoked.
novakyu
I wasn't trying to get into a spat with anyone, but as you have started one, I guess I'll take the bait and reply.
My point was merely that Shashi is trying to provide some information as to NetSol's reasoning. I think we should listen and consider that.
I also think there are some underlying issues that haven't been addressed yet. I ran an experiment tonight and if it works, will post results in the next day or so. Sorry to sound mysterious, but I don't want to predjudice the results. It might actually explain some things.
I didn't want to point the finger at anyone but here are some of the "somes" that you think are unspecified but I personally think are completely out of line and unproductive:
"And you are a toy of NSI. Why you defend this practices. Jerk." Posted by "Nicolas"
"you're a fucking stupid Bellamkonda, get a life and stop to trick your customers." Posted by "John"
Enough said? I note that neither of them had the courage to post a URL and neither of them seems to have a great grasp of English. Do I need to say more?
Rant over.
PS - In order to avoid confusion - I am Stumpie from the previous post. I do not have multiple personalites. I just posted from 2 different pc's and forgot my cookies are set differently. The joys of technology 
Shashi, I'm thoroughly impressed with the openness of your blog post. What this tells me is that through this forum NS customers can REACH OUT TO NS managers...wow....I look forward to the feedback on this situation.
Ramon Ray, Smallbiztechnology.com
Sian/Stumpie ,
Thanks for your comments and support. I am happy I used my blog to open a conversation and I have passed on the suggestions and the postive feedback.
Novakyu,
Your feedback was good and thank you taking the time to use this post and folow this comments thread.
- I have passed on your comment of using SSL and I have no update on that for you.
- Just to clarify we are not going to "put up websites" - see the change at terranovakyu.com. That is a generic under construction page.Any new reservation the domain will not resolve.
- I am not sure I can provide any more info on the changes/enhancements to zone file and DNS server information. My perosnal opinion is that it will make it very difficult if not impossible to get any info on these domains. Sorry but I don't have any more info than that.
I made a new post just now. I am happy that a lot of people took the time to comment and that is always helpful. I am trying to be a ombudsman and I think that helps both Network Solutions and the community.
Shashi, I am confused. I read your comment to someone:
---Jon,
---We dont' sell search info and
---our search is secure.
---Shashi
If this statement is true, then there would be no reason for NS to "secure" a searched domain. No one else would see what domains I was interested in (since you said you dont sell it and your sire is secure), so NS would not need to secure it.
I believe that the reason you reserve it - is to prevent someone from then buying it on another source, like Godaddy.
Logically, if someone is "tasting" a domain I am searching for on NS - then your system is not secure and/or you are selling the searches.
Sorry guys, I think they caught you with your pants down. I don't buy domains on NS so it is not an issue for me... but to decieve others that are not as domain savvy is poor business. SPH
Stephen, Shashi stated their reason previously why they're doing this:
We did this because we heard customers complain that queried domain names are being snatched up by other people as soon as they searched.
Google around and you'll find other registrars are experiencing this very same problem. Unfortunately this event has expanded in past months to the point where a user searches for a domain name, it's available, but later find it taken before they checkout.
This problem of domain tasting, domain front running, etc. can (almost) easily be solved if the VeriSign COM/NET Registry imposes a fee for the add/grace period or ICANN creates a solution. But until either one finally does so, coupled with people demanding this issue be resolved "immediately", registrars are generally attempting to address this under the circumstances.
I for one can certainly understand why they're doing it, even though I don't necessarily agree. Whether people believe that or not is up to them.
Then again, no one's compelled to believe anyway.
Yes Dave, but he claims NS is secure - this is not secure.
Therefor logically - either NS is not a secure platform (what else can people be stealing.. credit card, id's?) or it is secure and NS is doing this for other reasons.
I have never ever had this problem in Godaddy - ever.
Thus, to this feeble mind - this NS process does not make any sense.
sorry... but like I said, I dont use NS so no worries by me. sph
I have to agree stephen - I can't see where up the chain of a simple whois lookup this information could be leaked. If NetSol have a security issue with their upstream providers they should resolve such concerns with them, IMO.
To do this as opposed to simply resolving the real issue seems strange at best to me.
To maybe better understand the security thing about NS' search lookup, we need to first understand how exactly a registrar determines if a domain name is available. I'll give a rather "layperson" explanation, though, so I might overlook some important technical detail that might make a difference.
Whenever a user goes to a registrar's site and uses it to search for a possibly available .com domain name, it goes straight to the VeriSign COM/NET Registry. The Registry is the authoritative record holder for .com domain names, kinda similar to a Registry to hold records for, say, a do-not-call list.
Obviously I won't claim I intimately know how NS' search is set up. But that's generally how all registrars do their availability searches.
Depending on the .com Registry, they'll either give the status of the domain name or say it's available. They'll tell the registrar if it's available, but neither the Registry nor the registrar share that information to other registrars. (hopefully, anyway...)
The past year I've consistently seen various people complaining they've gone to a registrar's site, searched for a domain name, found it's available, try to register it, but find it taken before they finally checkout. Go Daddy complained about the same thing a few years ago in a previous ICANN meeting. (hope you don't mind mentioning your competitor, Shashi. :P)
This real issue has since prompted ICANN to start a process to investigate this. It might take a long while, though, so don't hold your breath for some "instant" solution.
Now NS and any other registrar can make their systems as secure as possible. What they obviously can't control, however, is what happens outside of that, namely end users' computers and their ISPs.
The big 3 registrars - Go Daddy, eNom, and Network Solutions, plus a few others, have already consistently said they don't sell their searches to anyone nor do they register domain names for their own commercial gain (well barring aside what NS is doing now). But...people still believe they're up to no good because of what they see, and registrars can't offer any "definitive proof" they're not doing that without risking their trade secrets being discovered by their competitors.
The SSL thing might be an idea. But again, that won't necessarily solve the problem if the user's computer or their ISP is transmitting that data elsewhere somehow.
(The part above is pure speculation, I know. I just can't think of anything else possibly causing that, and neither can the registrars as well.)
One thing I've accepted as reality is that people generally don't care about the so-called devil-in-the-details except to get the results they paid for (or about to). While that's understandable, it's sometimes putting unwarranted blame on those who really haven't done anything wrong if sh** happens.
That's life for you.
@Dave Zan: And that's exactly how I figured it worked. Which kinda makes the whole thing seem like scam which is why there's this pretty big backlash.
If NetSol and VeriSign say they have no leaks then it's fair enough to say "well hay if people are frontrunning then it's something *you* did."
If NetSol is using SSL, then y'know it's pretty secure else people wouldn't use SSl to do their shopping with credit cards & online banking.
The problem here is obviously that NetSol thinks it's doing the world a favour - but it isn't at all. People are going to use their search tool every now and then to find out if a domain is available then maybe sometimes buy it somewhere else. It's a fact of life, it will happen. If they don't want that then they should close the domain lookup to non-customers. Don't want that? No I didn't think they would.
Dave,
I think you described the process pretty well.
I am monitoring this thread ( of course its my blog and thanks everyone for the discussion and feedback.
I am sure you already know that the domains searched on the WHOIS search page are not being reserved. We already added messaging on the home page and the domain search page to explain the measure to our customers.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Thanks,
Shashi
Just wanted to let you know of a new post that I made today : http://www.shashi.name/2008/01/g...is-
getting.html
Thanks,
Shashi
This is unfair, unnecessary, and unethical. I lost a lot of credibility with a client this week because I accidentally 'lost' their company's domain name to NS by doing a whois lookup. Now they can't get the domain they want unless they go through NS. Crooks.
You should be ashamed of your job.
Wow. For those of you who "understand" why NetSol is doing this - what are you drinking?
NetSol is doing this to get $18.99 today for a domain you searched for yesterday and could have had for $9.99. Front Runners my ass!
This is a scam to steal an idea from someone who in good faith used your website to see what was available and hold it for ranson. I don't care if some kid is out there trying to sell it for $900 or NetSol is trying to sell it for $18.99 - it is exactly the same thing.
And for Mark - what exactly makes you think that the people who are upset are "left-wing"? I got bit yesterday on three names that I had weeded out of hundreds I thought off when I searched for them. It is not that $18.99 is an outrageous price - it isn't. It is the principal of using a website as a flytrap to capture someone else's idea and hold it hostage.
NetSol is no white knight - they are thieves, and regardles of how civil you are, Sashi, that makes you one for defending them.
What a sorry outfit.
Thank you
register.com is no different..
use www.betterwhois.com for whois queries.
Commenting by HaloScan
