X.Org Might Lose Its Domain Name

[phoronix]

Phoronix: X.Org Might Lost Its Domain Name

Unless there's a miracle, the X.Org Foundation stands to lose one of its biggest assets: its single-letter domain name...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=X.Org-Domain-Woes

[Daktyl198]

... Why? I'm sorry if I don't understand, but what does the type of business matter when it comes to domain names? Why do they have to prove they're connected to the LLC, I mean.

One person bought it. They're name should be in the records for the registrar. Which company they entered into the records can always be changed, no? As long as that one person pays to renew the domain name, I fail to see why this is a big deal.

Somebody enlighten me, because apparently I'm stupid regarding this, despite owning 3 domain names.

[Michael]

... Why? I'm sorry if I don't understand, but what does the type of business matter when it comes to domain names? Why do they have to prove they're connected to the LLC, I mean.

One person bought it. They're name should be in the records for the registrar. Which company they entered into the records can always be changed, no? As long as that one person pays to renew the domain name, I fail to see why this is a big deal.

Somebody enlighten me, because apparently I'm stupid regarding this, despite owning 3 domain names.

They have to prove the link to the LLC, because if I understand it correctly from the limited info they've made public, they don't have access to the domain currently so they can't renew it or update the records, etc. Basically they don't appear to have access to manage the domain.

[Passso]

Such a domain name can cost so much nowadays if it was to sell...

X

Org

How many porn sites would spend millions for that?? XD

[Scellow]

I'm happy with that, let this dinosaur buggy stuff die, it's a good thing

[Luke_Wolf]

They have to prove the link to the LLC, because if I understand it correctly from the limited info they've made public, they don't have access to the domain currently so they can't renew it or update the records, etc. Basically they don't appear to have access to manage the domain.

Shouldn't the more obvious response be to hunt this Leon Shiman down and have him officially transfer it to Keith Packard or a similar individual?

Edit: I don't think they even tried, here's his linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/leon-shiman-8846594

[Michael]

Shouldn't the more obvious response be to hunt this Leon Shiman down and have him officially transfer it to Keith Packard or a similar individual?

Edit: I don't think they even tried, here's his linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/leon-shiman-8846594

I assume they had already tried that to get him to willfully transfer it or maybe he doesn't even himself have access to the account anymore or something like that...

[nealeu]

This whole issue of loss of domain control and ownership is an embarrassment and a really big security whole. How often do people fail to renew a domain on which they were receiving emails and then find that domain has been squatted for ransom?

I think this issue is a scandal waiting to happen. When you hijack a previously active domain, you gain access to all emails being sent thinking that the original owner is receiving them.

Imagine gaining control of gmail.com because Google forgot to renew it. You'd immediately have a vast quantity of emails from banks, PayPal, eBay etc with the ability to reset passwords and gain control of people's digital lives.

This is true of many personal email domains (and why I advise friends against setting up email on a personal domain).

My view is that once a domain is registered, then that domain is owned by that organisation forever without an expiry of what is effectively a tiny DNS service charge, plus a massive monopoly rent to the registrar.

The system should instead be that if you fail to renew your domain, the domain becomes dormant unless you re-activate it by paying your DNS service charge. No domain squatting, no inadvertent loss of all those personal messages.

It would be far better for the X.Org domain to become dormant as a result of what's currently happening, not for it to fall into unintended hands with all the unintended visits (to a porn site perhaps) and emails too.

(Hmm... as my first post on the forums, that's a bit of a rant, but it's what had me sign up )

[schmidtbag]

To my knowledge, this domain is about 11 years old. In Internet years, that's a long time. Aside from being scummy from pressuring to take it away, who would want to buy a domain with a well-established userbase? It's kind of like a city kicking out a restaurant that isn't paying enough taxes, but the city ends up losing more money because nobody wants to buy the lot.

[erendorn]

... Why? I'm sorry if I don't understand, but what does the type of business matter when it comes to domain names? Why do they have to prove they're connected to the LLC, I mean.

One person bought it. They're name should be in the records for the registrar. Which company they entered into the records can always be changed, no? As long as that one person pays to renew the domain name, I fail to see why this is a big deal.

Somebody enlighten me, because apparently I'm stupid regarding this, despite owning 3 domain names.

One organisation bought it, not one person.
This organisation was dissolved: nobody owns the domain anymore. Which means that the new organisation has no more rights than anyone else to get it.
In order to have preferential access to the domain (renewal instead of buy), the new organisation must prove that it is in fact related to the one that was dissolved.
That's what they mean by "paper trail".