|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
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)
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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domain_hijacking&direction=prev&oldid=49785331 That was the version that seems most accurate before 18.104.22.168 replaced a large amount of text with an "IT'S AWWWIGHT" comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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?-126.96.36.199 11:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
Updated ICANN policy
- 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