Use DomainTools’ whois history to research the history of a domain name you’re buying.
When you’re ready to shell out a bunch of cash for a domain name, it’s important to understand the ownership history of the domain name. There’s no title insurance for domains, so the onus is on you to make sure the domain isn’t stolen and has clean title.
In fact, it was DomainTools’ whois history that saved me from buying a stolen domain name for $5,000 back in 2005.
To access whois history, just search for the domain on DomainTools. Scroll down to “DomainTools Exclusive” to see if there are any archived whois records:
Clicking on the link will bring you to a page that shows all of the dates of recorded whois records. Red dates indicate records protected by whois privacy, and shading generally indicates similar records.
You should look for frequent changes in ownership, as well as short ownership periods. In the case referenced above, the domain was owned by one person until it briefly changed hands (and registrars) for 5 days, only to jump to a different owner and registrar after that. I ended up calling the previous registrant who told me the domain was stolen. The extra effort was a small price to pay to avoid losing $5,000.
gpmgroup says
I can see the advantages of being able to trace title but I’m not really convinced that this should be provided by a third party.
Not withstanding the privacy* and copyright** issues the problem with DomainTools is it isn’t always authoritative*** and shouldn’t be presented as such.
If community deems there are beneficial reasons for having historical whois then it should be driven through ICANN’s consensus policies so that the necessary safeguards are implemented such as the prevention of data aggregation for commercial gain. (This is not what the WHOIS data was intended for and makes people with devious motives more likely to hide behind privacy services or falsify WHOIS data, which goes against ICANN’s core principles of WHOIS accuracy.
*It is illegal within European jurisdictions to allow personal data to be transferred to, and stored by, entities outside the area of jurisdiction without permission.
**Does DomainTools honor robot.txt directives? I can perhaps understand a small player like Jay risking it, but most corporate’s like Google, Yahoo & Microsoft are always very careful to abide by it for good reason.
***If the only mechanism to collect this data is done somewhat randomly i.e. only at the time of previous WHOIS searches for any given name at Domaintools.com it is difficult to see how the data can be deemed authoritative.
Andrew Allemann says
@ gpmgroup – I don’t see any sort of copyright violation. Data is very difficult to copyright. You can’t copyright the phone book.
With regards to robot.txt directives, that would only apply to the screenshots it takes, unless I’m missing something. I believe it has a system like what Archive.org uses.
No one is saying the historical whois is conclusive. It obviously only picks up certain dates, not every one. But the whois information is accurate.
gpmgroup says
I believe archive.org fully honors the robots.txt directives.
There is quite a bit more information on the DomainTools crawling techniques to be found on the web e.g. IncrediBIll’s thoughts
http://incredibill.blogspot.com/2008/01/domaintools-whois-and-aboutus-site.html
WHOIS data was never intended to he aggregated in the way Domaintools does.
e.g. Spotting new products and company changes before public announcements, this kind of use of WHOIS data does not encourage open and transparent WHOIS data.
Why would any company or individual want their competitors to know which domains they hold or have just bought? It’s one thing looking up names in a WHOIS database it’s a whole different ball game being able to purchase a list.
Further it could lead to serious problems for people who opt for privacy protection just prior to a sites launch, such as a women’s refuge etc. Even worse is the fact that they will most likely be totally unaware that their actual personal data may be easily be bought for years to come which is not good.
What really surprises me though is this aggregation of data is done by a company whose other businesses interest are intrinsically linked to the good will of the community. e.g. the sourcing of good quality names, but also the selling of any names in a market which is essentially a thin model where even losing a handful of significant bidders could result in seriously reduced sale prices being achieved.
Andrew Allemann says
@gpmgroup – so are you against historical whois or reverse whois? I’m confused.
Dude says
Repackaging and selling public information is unethical and probably illegal.
Andrew Allemann says
“Repackaging and selling public information is unethical and probably illegal.”
Huh? That’s what hundreds of leads services and local newspapers do with public information, such as tax filings, lawsuit filings, DBAs, etc.
Seb says
I’ve said it already, privacy laws are much stronger in Europe and the data displayed by DomainTools violate these laws.
European citizens should be able to opt-out.
That’s the law here.
Andrew Allemann says
@ Seb – in that case, isn’t whois itself ‘illegal’ in Europe? All DT is doing is taking publicly available information.
gpmgroup says
I can see some benefits in EPP with historical extensions but there needs to be safeguards because such databases have wider implications for innocent third parties.
Therefore I believe any such databases need to be explicitly agreed through bottom up consensus policies through Internet governance bodies such as ICANN. I think reverse WHOIS raises even wider and deeper concerns.
There is a lot of community benefit in having as many people as possible feel they can safely give their contact data for WHOIS purposes. For people to feel comfortable they need to know at the point of submitting/entering their data exactly how their data will be used.
D says
Domaintools make more good than bad especially in recovering stolen domain names
Johnny D says
I think the domaintools who is history only goes back like 3 or 4 years… Is this correct?
Andrew Allemann says
@ Johnny D – no, on many domains it goes back to about 2001.
Patrick McDermott says
“All DT is doing is taking publicly available information.”
Andrew,
You really surprised me with this particular point of view.
DT is NOT just “taking publicly available information.”
It’s NOT public info. Access to the WhoIs info comes with restrictions which you agree to just by virtue of inquiring.
As gpmgroup said, “WHOIS data was never intended to he aggregated in the way Domaintools does.”
Not only is such aggregation not intended ,DT is violating WhoIs Terms Of Usage.
Below is an excerpt from Godaddy’s WhoIs
terms of usage.
Other Registrars use similar wording.
Highlights:
“By submitting an inquiry, you agree to these terms of usage…”
“…you agree not to use this data to…make possible, dissemination or collection of this data, in part or in its entirety, for any purpose…”
“You further agree not to use this data to enable high volume, automated or robotic electronic processes designed to collect or compile this data for any purpose, including mining this data for your own personal or commercial purposes.”
—
From GoDaddy’s WhoIs Terms of Usage:
http://snurl.com/GDWhoIs
“By submitting an inquiry, you agree to these terms of usage and limitations of warranty. In particular, you agree not to use this data to allow, enable, or otherwise make possible, dissemination or collection of this data, in part or in its entirety, for any purpose, such as the transmission of unsolicited advertising and solicitations of any kind, including spam. You further agree not to use this data to enable high volume, automated or robotic electronic processes designed to collect or compile this data for any purpose, including mining this data for your own personal or commercial purposes.”
—
So Andrew, how is what DT is doing not a violation of WhoIs usage terms?
Isn’t compiling and making WhoIs info available for sale a commercial usage?
Andrew Allemann says
Patrick, I understand what you’re saying and I’ve struggled with this in the past. But I don’t think DT violates the spirit of what whois was meant to be — a way to know who owns a particular domain name. I don’t think it’s right for a particular registrars to put restrictions on that. Furthermore, there may be a technicality in how it is accessed, since DT probably accesses the whois information through its own registrars rather than at GoDaddy. (Granted, its own registrars then have to query GoDaddy’s whois.)
Many of the systems you and I use in day-to-day domaining rely on automated querying of whois. For example, my Watch My Domains Pro software, which manages my portfolio, goes to whois to pull up the records.
I would also argue that domain tools has been good for the domain industry. The company has certainly done things in the past that concerned me (reverse whois), but I think we’d be worse off without it.
Patrick McDermott says
“But I don’t think DT violates the spirit of what whois was meant to be — a way to know who owns a particular domain name.”
Andrew,
DT is doing a lot more than letting you “know who owns a particular domain name”.
That might be a true statement for domains registered at their Registrar(s).
But they have gone far beyond that.
They are compiling WhoIs data across the board.
I only used GoDaddy as an example. Every Registrar that I have seen has the same terms and conditions as Godaddy.
GoDaddy didn’t create those terms.
If you visit Internic WhoIs and type in
“DomainNameWire.com? which I did , you’ll receive this notice:
Terms of Use excerpts:
“TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our Whois database through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume and automated except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations”
—
“the Data in VeriSign Global Registry
Services’…Whois database is provided …
information purposes only,…”
—-
“By submitting a Whois query, you agree to abide by the following terms of use:
You agree that..The compilation, repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of VeriSign.”
—
Andrew,
These are Verisisn’s terms not GoDaddy’s.
Do you really believe DT obtained “written consent”?
—
“Many of the systems you and I use in day-to-day domaining rely on automated querying of whois”
Yes Andrew, but there is a BIG difference.
You are not performing such activity with the purpose of compiling, repackaging, or disseminating the WhoIs info for commercial profit.
—
“I would also argue that domain tools has been good for the domain industry”
For the domain industry or for them?
Fire can keep you warm of burn you to death.
Water is needed for life, fun to swim in but can also drown a four year old child.
Yes, DT’s WhoIs info service is good if you want to find out what domains Frank Schilling owns or anyone else’s domain portfolio.
But nefarious parties that want to take your domain(s) can also use the info against you
in UDRP or court filings.
DT does not distinguish between good usage of
the WhoIs data or bad usage.
—
“…but I think we’d be worse off without it.”
Only if you’re lucky.
Patrick McDermott says
“If you visit Internic WhoIs and type in
“DomainNameWire.com? which I did , you’ll receive this notice:”
—
I left off this link by error:
http://snurl.com/WhoIsDNW
Andrew Allemann says
Patrick, the idea behind this post was how DT’s historical whois can protect you from buying a stolen domain. So there’s one benefit we wouldn’t have without DT. I also use historical whois to find sploggers who are ripping off my content and hiding behind whois privacy. They sometimes had an open whois record in the past.
I have no idea if VeriSign is allowed to limit access to whois, and if so what constitutes “high volume” or “automated”. I do know that registrars have to provide ‘free’ access to whois information. I haven’t read any of their contracts with ICANN. If VeriSign had a problem with this, they would have addressed it. My guess is open access to whois helps VeriSign, as many people who use whois data register domain names based on it.
Dave Zan says
Andrew, also from VeriSign’s TOS as Patrick mentioned:
I could be wrong, but DT doesn’t exactly use “electronic processes that are high-volume and automated” like, say, what Verio did in their later suit by Register.com. Besides, it’s VeriSign who gets to decide whether DT violates their terms or not, despite how others interpret VeriSign’s TOS.
Andrew Allemann says
@ Dave Zan –
Right, what I’m saying is I’m not sure if ICANN would allow VeriSign to limit access to whois. I think you’re right, it’s VeriSign who gets to decide whether DT violates their terms. But then you also have the registrars, which is where the actual registrant data is held in the ‘thin whois’ model. I also don’t know that ICANN would let them limit access to that information, since they are required to provide ‘free access’. My guess is it’s never been directly addressed with ICANN, but I’d love to hear from someone who may have some insight into that.
Patrick McDermott says
“I also don’t know that ICANN would let them limit access to that information, since they are required to provide ‘free access’.”
Andrew,
I don’t want to beat this horse to death and as you said your original reason for this blog post has nothing to do with the big left tuen it’s made.
For the record I can appreciate having access to the WhoIs archives but I do hate to see it used against domainers in UDRPs just by virtue of someone owning lots of domains.
That said, the issue goes beyond someone’s right to “free access” to WhoIs.
DT is actually compiling and selling that WhoIs data.
That is not just access.
Anyway lets get this topic back on track
and let Versign (or whomever) decide if what DT is doing violates their terms and if they want to do something about it.
I hope you’ll continue blogging about the various DT tools you find useful without reservation despite my intrusive comments which I do hope you consider friendly participatory retorts.
Andrew Allemann says
Patrick, I appreciate all comments that are well-informed like yours. The only ones I don’t like are those that literally say something like “your stupid” 🙂
Pete says
Andrew, It appears that you don’t handle defeat graciously. You just change the topic and try and make the other person look bad. Patrick is most correct with his views and comments. On the other hand you are not and can’t or won’t accept it. I don’t know, is that being smart or being studpid. If the shoe fits then wear it.