Uhhh.... Verislime's Typosquatting begins?

[checknme]

I typed in a URL incorrectly and look what I got: http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url=w.ww.test.com&host=w.ww.test.com. Is this the begining of Verislime's typosquatting?

 

[PCplay]

I noticed this too.

The most annoying that that I am noticing is that I cant see the google PR of domains that dont resolve anymore. Anyone know a way around this?

 

[Steen]

www.unregisteredDN9a83d8.net (hope its under 63).

I personally think its a good idea for them to make some revenue off of not used domain names.


But aparently others don't think so.

OMG, it doesnt show google PR for dropped domains, well dropped domains were never suppose to have PR and its just a google thing, VS cant be held liable for such a small thing.

JMHO that may change soon


BTW, They are in a good possition with all thier marvelous domains they have that can no longer be taken.

www.r.net etc.

Then when it comes for .com domains

 

[ToastyX]

See post below.

 

[LewR]

Verisign will get their asses sued off on this one - anti-trust issues.

 

[beatz]

Noticed it too today when checking out some expired names.
I do hope they get sued - and i bet they will ( for instance by MSN etc.).

Let's hope this is the overkill move that will force ICANN to say "Enough."

 

[Steen]

Well...


Maybe its typo squatting in the meens if www.fire.net and www.fier.net was unregged.


So VS got traffic from it?


Something I just thought of...

What if this WAS the case..

And they were proffiting from traffic from a famous TM..

Since the company could just reg the name for $10, but could the company get mad @ VS for making money in the meentime?

What if VS has reserved (owns) a TM domain name and its obviosuly a high violation?

Can VS have thier domain(s) examined by WIPO?

Just htoughts

 

[beatz]

Interesting..

Check out www.all-xxxporn.com - it redirects to their PPC and is in Redemption period; seems like they "only" redirect names that are in redemption, pendingdelete or have expired but no unregged names.Just my observation from today as i typed a few unregged names like sfgkadfghladfgashl.com and those redirect to nowhere.

But that might change soon, who knows.

 

[Steen]

It hasnt been fully implemented on .com yet.

its urrently being tested on .net (and apparenlty some .com).

www.32098c908kjh3.net

Just resolved for me..

 

[DotLeader]

its not typo squatting

as someone said on other forum
microsoft does it when they redirect domains to a msn page

 

[beatz]

Just because microsoft does it doesn't automatically mean it's not typosquatting.

And you bet companies like MS or similar *will* sue Verisign over that as VS this way abuses its registry monopoly to block free competition in the "redirection of mistyped/unregistered/etc domains to PPC pages" business so to speak.

 

[DotLeader]

they arnt specificly targetting typo domains and not targetting any specific domains either
its just like .nu and many other extensions they redirect all domains not registered to a this domain is not registered page

 

[beatz]

Wrong.

At the moment it's exactly *NOT* the unregistered domains but domains in redemption period etc.

 

[unclewilco]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32852.html

 

[ToastyX]

All they did was add a wildcard address record so that domains not in the zone file resolve to their site finder. That includes the following domains:

* Available domains
* Pending delete domains
* Redemption period domains
* Domains on hold
* Domains with no name servers

I don't see anything wrong with that, even if it benefits them. They are not targeting any specific domains. Like it or not, that is NOT typosquatting.

 

[beatz]

It is.

Would you like your potential customer types in a typo of your domain, but instead of getting a normal error page so he could be made aware he did a mistype he now is redirected to a "real" page with maybe your competition advertising for the same service/products you are offering ?
He might not even notice he got to the wrong site.He might just buy from your competition.

And so Verisign is making a profit from your (maybe even TM-ed?) name and business.

Exactly what typosquatting is about.

Plus AOL and MSN might argue they block fair and free competition in the "redirection market".

Not even to mention all the problems webmasters now might have - hint: MX records, not bouncing email etc.

 

[StockDoctor]

I have quite a few names with no nameserver attached. I resent them using my names to make a profit. It's my property, and if I don't want name servers, how does that give Verislime the right to use them? Sure, I can put some work into putting them on nameservers, but why should I have to spend any of my valuable time checking these and changing them?

I also agree with the opinions expressed above about Verislime using unregistered typos of other peoples trademarked names to generate revenue.

I'll be making a call today to VRSN and add my complaint to their ignore file. This is another reason we need to form a coalition of Domainers to get our messages across in a bit louder voice.
Doc

 

[NexSite]

I dont see why microsoft cant play thier trump card. They control 95% of the browser market. Seems like it would be easy for them to insert a few lines of code via windows update, that could pre-empt verisgns typo etc... resolves and direct them to thier own advertiser search page. Big bucks. If it's legal and verisign gets away with it, then what is to stop MS. The browser is King and MS has known this for quite some time.

 

[Steen]

Originally posted by beatz
Wrong.

At the moment it's exactly *NOT* the unregistered domains but domains in redemption period etc.

Your wrong..

From hour one it was on unregistered .nets. Even b4 the ones that were never regged.


About MS,


I would love to see MS accuse VS of monopoly :-D

 

[ToastyX]

Originally posted by beatz
It is.

I don't care if you don't like what VeriSign has done, but to call it typosquatting is going too far. It is not typosquatting. Nothing is being "squatted."

Would you like your potential customer types in a typo of your domain, but instead of getting a normal error page so he could be made aware he did a mistype he now is redirected to a "real" page with maybe your competition advertising for the same service/products you are offering ?
He might not even notice he got to the wrong site.He might just buy from your competition.

..., then that's the potential customer's fault. You can't blame VeriSign for the mistakes of others. They even provide a "Did You Mean" section which displays addresses similar to the address you entered.