ICANN Finds No Wrong Doing in Domain Front Running

eldavojohn writes "Remember the investigation ICANN did in domain name front running? Well, it turns out that there was no wrong doing going on at all. What went wrong? Domain name 'tasting', which involves a free five day trial of a domain name, was the big culprit. From the article: 'In some cases ... the committee found that a separate practice of domain name tasting may be causing problems. That refers to someone testing the financial viability of a name for up to five days and then returning it for a full refund, using a loophole in registration policies. Domain tasting can tie up millions of Internet addresses, including ones someone checks but does not buy.' If you check for availability of a website and someone sees you do it and they reserve it before you, it's fair play."

In Other News....

[grcumb]

"ICANN fails to find own ass with both hands."

Film at 11. If we can find it.

Re:Did not examine Network Solutions

[Mr. Slippery]

we held the name for 5 days, so the user would have to come back to us to register it, and then released it after that time.

Further proof - if any more was needed - that Network Solutions is a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Re:ICANN finds many coincidences...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

NETSOLSUCKSALOT12300091.COM.

Shit, you were the one who took that?

Re:It certainly is deceptive...

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Trust me, there'd still be typos. For some people, an OK button has an irresistible attraction; if they see one, they can't resist clicking on it, without looking at what they're agreeing to.

I agree. And don't even get me started on "SUBMIT" buttons, I can't help myself, and click them before I've even fini

"No evidence of wrongdoing"

[Anonymous Coward]

The Commerce Partnership has recently completed a survey of insurance agents in Chicago.

The practice of Network Insurance Ltd of pouring petrol on the floor and burning down the shops of those who declined a policy was not a subject of investigation.

The Commerce Partnership did however consider whether the insurance agents' shoes were so dirty upon entry that they violated health and safety standards.

The Commerce Partnership has found no wrongdoing or lack of regulation in this matter.

P.S. Please give us more funding.