Talk:Network Solutions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] those domain names delisted by ivan007
I've tried a compromise on the listing of many domains that Network Solutions are registrars for. I still don't see the need for an arbitary list out of 7.6million that they run. I do understand that it may be worth showing what sort of domain names customers they have, so I've listed a few as examples. Seems a sensible compromise. Note: this isn't vandalism - how could it be? And no, I don't think I own Wikipedia - why would I think that? I'm just doing what it's here for - trying to make it accurate.
- That list contains only major (significant, notable) domain names. Why would someone be interested in reading these? It is telling. If you see a startup registrar, will you register a valuable domain name with them? Probably not. But if you see that Google transfered their domain names to them? This will automatically inspire trust in people. That's why we, who buy and own domain names, care about how many major domain names are using a particular registrar. It is often even a more important factor than the total number of domain names a registrar has. That's why it deserves to be there. Maxt 20:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Maxt
This is a Wikipedia entry, not an advert. By what measure is kernel.com notable? Or mp3.com? And who says that Google transferred their domain name to them? Let's just agree to disagree and have a short list.
- First, learn to indent Talk page messages. Second, WRT: "who says that Google transferred their domain name to them" -- have you ever heard of a hypothetical example? Also, the mere fact that you don't consider a domain notable doesn't mean it's not notable. Finally, my job was doing research on their notable domain names. Your job was vandalism. Maxt 15:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
While Network Solutions is the largest, it is by no means the cheapest. CoolGuy 07:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- They're no longer even the largest, Go Daddy has passed them according to Registrar Stats. I've made a slight edit, but the article probably needs a section on their market dominance and when they moved to second place. --BenM 05:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Wait, how the hell does this read like an ad? I dont see a differance?(mystery)
- If you think it reads like an ad, feel free to contribute to make it better. It doesn't advertise their services, it just talks about the company from a neutral perspective. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Oversight
Is there anything to protect a consumer from Network Solutions in case of a dispute? Nothing on this topic is present in the article. Yet there is room for a conflict of interest between a profit motive and a responsibility to administer domains fairly. I have an interest in the topic and would like to know more. Wikivek 18:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy over Domain Name Front Running
Ken Arromdee has deleted the following section that I put in concerning the recent controvlersy over domain name front running:
- A post by Network Solutions employee Shashi Bellamkonda on slashdot says that the actions are a customer protection measure to defend their customers against front runners who register domain names known to have been searched.[1] "The protection measure holds the searched domains at Network Solutions for up to 4 days so customers can take the time to decide whether registration of the domain name will help them build and protect their brand," says Bellamkonda.[1] "Network Solutions is not registering these names at the end of the reservation period with the hope of selling them in the secondary market."[1]
Arromdee says that Slashdot is not an authoritative source.
I agree with Arromdee's assessment. Since this was a breaking story I put the slashdot story down as a source but I realize slashdot is not considered authoritative.
Therefor I have researched the subject more and have found the response to the issue from Jonathon Nevett, Vice President of Policy at Network Solutions.
I always like to have both sides of an argument equally represented when there is a controversy.
Here is what I have added using a more authoritative source.
- Circle ID reported on January 8, 2008 that Jonathon Nevett, Vice President of Policy at Network Solutions, had offered a response to the news story stating Network Solution's policy.[2] The policy was "a security measure to protect our customers," said Nevett.[2] "When a customer searches for an available domain name at our website, but decides not to purchase the name immediately after conducting the search," Nevett added, "after the search ends, we will put the domain name on reserve."[2] Nevett said that if the domain was "not purchased within 4 days, it will be released back to the registry and will be generally available for registration."[3]
Best regards,
Reservoirhill (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Citations
[edit] Evil
This article doesn't use the word "evil" enough. It will help it get to Good Article status. Jecowa (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- That would violate Wikipedia policy on NPOV.
- Best Regards,
- Reservoirhill (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speculative Domain Name Registration
Two weeks ago, the section on Domain Name Front Running had citations for every statement in the section and since then contributors have made a lot of uncited additions. What I have done is split the article in two and put all the cited material in one section and break out all the uncited material in the following section:
- The domains are not in fact truly registered (e.g. Network Solutions does not pay for them) and are released after four days by a mechanism called the Advance Grace Period.[citation needed] Furthermore, Network Solutions provide a list of newly registered and de-registered domains.[citation needed] Any parties with access to the list can see, by examining the DNS record for the domain, if this is a truly registered domain, or a domain speculatively registered by Network Solutions.[citation needed] As such, a user simply searching for a domain name via Network Solutions may find themselves having to pay a third party an entirely unreasonable fee simply to obtain a perfectly ordinary domain name.[citation needed]
- However, in fact, during the four day period the domain is actually available to anyone, not merely the person who searched for it, which means that Network Solutions are not reserving the domain for the searcher to protect him, since anyone can still buy that domain.[citation needed] (The reason the purchase is delayed until fractions of a second after de-registration is because Network Solutions are selling the domain name at a high price; by waiting for the domain to become available and using a normal reseller, the domain is bought more cheaply).[citation needed] However, as of 6th Feb, this practise is still occurring; unregistered domain names searched for in the Network Solutions domain name search engine are still being speculatively registered by Network Solutions.[citation needed]
- ICANN, in response to questions about this procedure submitted via their web-site, said that Network Solutions notified them in the first week of Feburary 2008 of this practise, and that they are now investigating, to check that Network Solutions are in compliance with their Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Network Solutions started this practise in mid-December 2007.[citation needed]
All the statements in this section need to be cited. Once citations are added, then we can integrate this material back into the main article.
Reservoirhill (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Most of that material is from me. I can't cite, because they're my actual experiences. For example, I emailed ICANN, they replied as described. The 6th Feb date comes from when I searched for a domain I later wished to buy and found of course NetSol had speculatively registered it. Toby Douglass (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm going to delete the material then because it violates Wikipedia policy on no original research.
-
- Reservoirhill (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy over fitmathemovie.com
I added the controversy over fitnathemovie.com - the controversial movie made by the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Network Solutions took the website offline, before the movie is finished. I think this is a pretty important thing. My addition was deleted because 'they are just enforcing their policy'. I strongly disagree! I don't think that it is the policy of Network Solutions to see a movie before somebody puts it on a website. Or does Network Solutions check all text, movies and pictures before somebody puts them on a website? Best regards, Peter
- It's relevant in Fitna (film), not really in the article about the company itself. - Simeon87 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's also relevant that a company is censoring a webiste 'beforehand'. I am glad 85.144.24.66 and Pavel Vozenilek agree on this too. A comment from Network Solution: "Network Solution is investigating whether the site's content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy" is of course not true. Since the site only showed one picture of the koran and a message like 'Geert Wilders presents Fitna', the investigation could be really quick! It's probably more true that they are afraid of DDOS attacks, complaints (and worse). Censorship 'beforehand' (nobody knows the real content) is very bad thing. Again: I don't think this is the standard policy of Network Solution! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popking1 (talk • contribs) 19:40, March 23, 2008 (UTC)
