Talk:Domain hijacking

Legal hijacking is not theft

Much of this page is absolute nonsense. The term "domain hijacking" is never correctly used to refer to the registration of an unrenewed, expired and released domain. "Hijacking" is a highly emotive term and to use it in this manner - for an activity that in itself is in no way either illegal nor contrary to any established norms - is thoroughly misleading.

However, there is an activity properly known as "domain hijacking". It is effectively synonymous with what is termed "domain theft" in the article.

JWAM 18:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that, connotations of the word "Hijacking" or not, the act of a new party registering a domain seconds after it expires is considered "Domain hijacking." This article wreaks of biased writing. If I was morally shabby enough to run a business out of stealing other people's domains milliseconds after they expire, would I be kindly editing the Domain Hijacking page on Wikipedia in order to make myself appear in a positive light? http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Domain_hijacking&direction=prev&oldid=49785331 That was the version that seems most accurate before 24.228.54.80 replaced a large amount of text with an "IT'S AWWWIGHT" comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.179.28 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal theft

This is currently kind of a stubby, stupid article. It has been taken over by people who think that legal theft is not theft. Fine. So, give legal theft another name, and let's have another article, that discusses this very real problem! (Probably more common than the illegal theft the article currently addresses.) Domain tasting seems to be very relevant.

Why would a Russian in Nevada take an expired low-traffic nonprofit domain, pay for a whole year, actually keep the domain, and copy over some of the old nonprofit content, not even putting up any ads? It seems like there must be some very bad motivation behind this, but what could it be?-69.87.203.184 11:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten

I rewrote this article from scratch based on what I know about domain hijacking, hopefully dealing with the severe POV issues. It would be useful to get more details on any criminal prosecutions that have been made in this area, and on what basis, and in particular regarding the recent Daniel Goncalves case, as I know very little about the criminality of this activity. Dcoetzee 04:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated ICANN policy

A specific case has sparked some related-discussion in ICANN's North American Regional At-Large Organization (NARALO). This has elucidated the following helpful comment:

May I suggest that people interested in this issue take a look at the "Final Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part B Policy Development Process". This PDP was undertaken specifically to look at the issue of domain hijacking, and resulted in a number of substantive recommendations to facilitate the urgent return of hijacked domains. The policy was adopted by the ICANN Board on 25 Aug 2011 and was implemented on 01 June 2012.

The actual policy implementation can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/transfers/policy-01jun12.htm. Of particular note are the sections on the Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) and the requirement for a registry to undo the transfer under certain conditions, and the requirement for the Registrar of Record to notify the registrant of the impending transfer.

Also perhaps of interest is the original SSAC report on hijackings - http://archive.icann.org/en/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf

Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The desired effect of that policy can be circumvented by hijacker(s) gaining access to the systems of more than one registrar, but it was a good try.126.209.22.124 (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Domain hijacking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20140929160717/https://www.snapnames.com/domainnewsresources/news/how_to_get_a_domain_that_is_already_taken to https://www.snapnames.com/domainnewsresources/news/how_to_get_a_domain_that_is_already_taken

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

proposal to include list of RFC`s into article subsection

Since the article has been locked, would someone with priviledges please add the below list somewhere near the bottom of the article? Cheers126.3.17.188 (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC 3375 - Generic Registry-Registrar Protocol Requirements
RFC 3735 - Guidelines for Extending EPP
RFC 3915 - Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping (e.g. Add Grace Period, Redemption Grace Period)
RFC 4114 - Using EPP for ENUM addresses
RFC 5910 - Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) (obsoletes RFC 4310, DNSSEC)
RFC 5730 - Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) (obsoletes RFC 4930, which obsoleted RFC 3730)
RFC 5731 - Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping (obsoletes RFC 4931)
RFC 5732 - Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Host Mapping (obsoletes RFC 4932)
RFC 5733 - Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping (obsoletes RFC 4933)
RFC 5734 - Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over TCP (obsoletes RFC 4934)