eweek.com — Something fishy is up with Chesterton Holdings. How did Chesterton own a reader's domain name and register it before she did? I ran some tests, picked three random names and checked them with CNet Domain Search page. 30 hours later I checked with a separate whois and determined the domains belonged to Chesterton, the same ad pages were displayed.
Jul 20, 2006 View in Crawl 4
mediaJul 21, 2006
There are many registrars that offer WHOIS privacy services such as GoDaddy, eNom, Dotster, etc. usually at a small fee of course. If you own an important and valuable domain, you probably shouldn't use a domain registrar like GoDaddy, where hijackers can easily have your domain transferred away if your e-mail or account at your registrar is compromised. Moniker (moniker.com) is possibly the securest registrar in the domain industry.
author20Jul 21, 2006
Verio used to do this, and deny it. It has been happening for years, and ICANN and the domain registrars have not done anything about it. I remember how Network Solutions ignored every complaint about every problem. All these years, millions of domains stolen and along with them ideas stolen. And trust in the Internet has been diminished in the minds of the claim jump victims. It really is completely unethical, combining eavesdropping and theft of intellectual property. We definitely need more security in the domain look-up process and a law making this illegal. Otherwise, we could stage a boycott of domains as a way of pressuring the registrars to do something. I believe Bob Parsons (the Godaddy founder) is the only one who complains about this. Nobody listens. By the way -- what is the street address and phone number of this company?
llanJul 21, 2006
But if they put up Ads, they would have to pay for them if they get clicked? And then they would keep the doamin because it would be a success? Only guessing :)
zoom1928Jul 21, 2006
Here's proof they're doing this. On Tuesday I typed "whois alskjdf.com" as a nonsense look-up just to test my new wireless Internet connection. Since was was curious after reading this story, I reran whois:Domain Name: alskjdf.comRegistrant------------------------------------------------------------Name: admin -Organization: Chesterton HoldingsEmail: admin@chestertonholdings.comAddress: 655 Flower St #254City, Province, Post Code: Los Angeles, CA, 90017Country: USPhone: 213-407-1774
cleverboyJul 22, 2006
@johnbmull: "Very evidently this is a CyberSquatter with 225,866 other sites hosted on the server as asdfj.com!!"This may stun you... but the domain name servers for that name are owned by NameView.com. They're a registrar. When you register a new domain name and do not tell them to do otherwise, most registrars set the DNS to their own servers. So... approximately 225,866 of Nameview's customers take advantage of this. It's also used for DNS management and web services like "redirect" too. As I said earlier, this topic really brings out the paranoia in people. I remember back in the day, a company I was working with said they were "thinking" about registering Connect.com, and that it was available. After spitting out my coffee and rushing to a whois lookup, it showed that it had been registered recently... but now gone. I've had a good number of friends lose domain names for an assortment of reasons, either before they registered it, or even after. It's a jungle out there. I just try to do my part to pass out machetes.
brownboi43Jul 22, 2006
Try allwhois.com: I've been checking the same names with them for months and they are all still available.
nikzJul 24, 2006
I whois'ed "myfatear.com" thru CNet after reading this article the other day, just re-checked today and sure enough: Domain Name: MYFATEAR.COM Registrar: NAMEKING.COM, INC. Whois Server: whois.nameking.com Referral URL: <a class="user" href="http://www.nameking.com">http://www.nameking.com</a> Name Server: NS11.CHESTERTONHOLDINGS.COM Name Server: NS1.CHESTERTONHOLDINGS.COM Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK EPP Status: clientDeleteProhibited EPP Status: clientUpdateProhibited EPP Status: clientTransferProhibited Updated Date: 23-Jul-2006 Creation Date: 23-Jul-2006 Expiration Date: 23-Jul-2007And of course there's now a squat-site published at myfatear.com, with a domain enquiry back to Chesterton.
whiterajahJul 27, 2006
See my post above - a domain name I tested was registered and dropped exactly as the OP described:No match for "CHESTERTONBASTARDS.COM".>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:56:58 EDT
microbanoAug 9, 2006
<a class="user" href="http://www.domainnameregistrationblog.com/2006/08/04/whois-hijacking-another-reason-to-hate-ads/">http://www.domainnameregistrationblog.com/2006/08/04/whois-hijacking-another-reason-to-hate-ads/</a>
doublearonSep 12, 2006
Dammit! I just got burned by this!! I thought I'd like to register my daughter's name as a .com when she's born. Checked to see if it was available the other day, but decided I'd wait until she was born (anytime now) before registering it, on the off chance that we'd change our mind on the name or she'd surprise us and come out a boy. Now you-know-who has squatted on it!ICANN should be enforcing its own rules against these speculators and dirtball registrars who are hijacking legitimate domain names. Why in hell would they want my daughter's name?!?I didn't realize that this was that much of a problem. But it seemed too weird that some corporation would park itself on a domain such as this, so I started researching the issue, which led me here, and dozens of other places. There is simply too much evidence accumulating for any reasonable person to believe that these speculators aren't manipulating the Whois system to get an unfair advantage over unsuspecting domain name buyers. Thousands of people looking for new domain names are finding the names they search suddenly gobbled up by speculators holding them for ransom.This is no accident. Speculators are manipulating the system and adding no value through their activities, while passing it off as legitimate commerce. Registrars are either playingthe game themselves or turning a blind eye to those who do. If they're tasting my as-of-yet unnamed child, they must be registering everything. Maybe I should consider naming her 3mclz6-nmwj2. If it wasn't apparent they'd taste that and charge me a 10X markup for their "service," it might be worth a try.ICANN could put a stop to this, but for some reason it is reluctant to do so. ICANNmakes the rules, and legitimate users depend on ICANN to enforce them.ICANN is falling down on the job.Maybe instead of endlessly debating whether or not we need a .xxx TLD, they should put a stop to the bad practices that are running rampant within the TLDs already under their control.
ksoulFeb 1, 2007
I've been burnt by this before.