jim at well.com
Sun Jul 27 13:57:24 PDT 2008
their email to me seems to imply a registration fee.
i'm taking rick's language as morally-based sarcasm.
i'm not surprised sf-lug.net doesn't appear as
available, and that's a possible discussion topic:
once someone's used some corporate entity such as
network solutions to register a domain name, i'm
guessing if the domain name expires, the corporate
entity retains control at least for a little while.
the first hope would be to sell it to the original
registering owner. a second hope might be to sell
it to a squatter or to retain the domain name as
assuming some of the above is at work, how to
rescue the domain name? in this case i'm guessing i
could pay them their registration ransom and once
i've regained legal control i could switch the
entity with which the domain name is registered.
the interesting part to me is how to switch the
control of the domain name from any of the for-profit
companies in this business to some entity or entities
that could in some way support the valid existence of
the domain name without charge or at least perhaps a
smaller cost or even the same cost but with a more
morally appealing cast. this would not include
go-daddy, which seems to have a low cost but a
distinctly tawdry appeal.
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 13:06 -0700, Justin Ryan wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 12:56 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
> > i could be wrong, and often am. if someone's
> > got advice to the contrary, i'm open to listening
> > and even thinking, maybe even paying.
> Do they want a registration fee, or, as Rick put it, "Ransom"?
> If they'll authorize a transfer, I'd be glad to pick it up from
> another registrar, but it is not listed as available.
> Even very large organizations like ACM SIGGRAPH typically do not spend
> the $1k+ to litigate or bribe their trademarks back into play, and
> I've had clients pay for domains which they never regained control of.
> In the end, people will use Google, et. al. :)
More information about the sf-lug