Re: .name WHOIS accuracy (was Re: [ga] repost: Domain not available)

[Hugo Monteiro <hugo.monteiro@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Chuck,

--- snip1 ---

~$ dig mafalda.name -t ANY @a6.nstld.com

; <<>> DiG 9.8.1-P1 <<>> mafalda.name -t ANY @a6.nstld.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 13527
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;mafalda.name. IN ANY

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
name. 300 IN SOA a6.nstld.com. hostmaster.nic.name. 203523422 300 300
1209600 300

;; Query time: 171 msec
;; SERVER: 192.5.6.35#53(192.5.6.35)
;; WHEN: Thu Jan 17 22:57:38 2013
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 93

--- snip1 ---



--- snip2 ---

~$ dig smith.name -t ANY @a6.nstld.com

; <<>> DiG 9.8.1-P1 <<>> smith.name -t ANY @a6.nstld.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 27330
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 10, ADDITIONAL: 4
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;smith.name. IN ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
smith.name. 10800 IN MX 10 mx03.nic.name.
smith.name. 10800 IN MX 10 mx04.nic.name.
smith.name. 10800 IN MX 10 mx01.nic.name.
smith.name. 10800 IN MX 10 mx02.nic.name.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
name. 10800 IN NS h6.nstld.com.
name. 10800 IN NS d6.nstld.com.
name. 10800 IN NS c6.nstld.com.
name. 10800 IN NS l6.nstld.com.
name. 10800 IN NS m6.nstld.com.
name. 10800 IN NS g6.nstld.com.
name. 10800 IN NS a6.nstld.com.
name. 10800 IN NS k6.nstld.com.
name. 10800 IN NS j6.nstld.com.
name. 10800 IN NS f6.nstld.com.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
mx01.nic.name. 300 IN A 72.13.32.89
mx02.nic.name. 300 IN A 72.13.32.90
mx03.nic.name. 300 IN A 69.58.186.82
mx04.nic.name. 300 IN A 69.58.186.83

;; Query time: 176 msec
;; SERVER: 192.5.6.35#53(192.5.6.35)
;; WHEN: Thu Jan 17 22:59:27 2013
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 359

--- snip2 ---


Funny how it REALLY seems that mafalda.name doesn't REALLY exist.
Apparently there's more to it than just a simple whois database update.
I do appreciate your explanation though. It's a shame it doesn't stick.
Can you elaborate also on these differences?

Regards,

Hugo Monteiro.



On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Hugo,****
>
> ** **
>
> First of all let me apologise for the frustrating experience.  Second, let
> me give a little history.  And third, let me explain what happened in this
> instance.****
>
> ** **
>
> Global Name Registry, the original registry operator for .name, put the
> surname ‘Mafalda’ on the .name Reserved  Common Names List as permitted by
> Appendix 6 Part I of the .name Registry Agreement. The purpose of the
> Reserved Common Names List is to not permit a common surname, such as
> “Smith”, to be registered at the 2nd level  thereby  allowing  more
> individuals the ability to  obtain  registrations at the 3rd level and/or
> Email Forwarding IDs  with their surname. Before the Reserved Common Names
> List was created and the restrictions built into the .name platform to
> prevent 2nd level domains from using any of those reserved surnames on
> the List, registrants could register those names and did. This happened
> with ‘mafalda.name’ resulting in the following registration history:****
>
> **1.      **It was registered on 27 May 2005 via eNom and deleted on 14
> September 2005.****
>
> **2.      **It was re-registered on 16 September 2005 via Key-Systems and
> deleted on 30 October 2012. ****
>
> Domain names that were registered prior to their inclusion on the Reserved
> Common Names List are grandfathered, meaning this: so long as the domains
> remain registered, they are exempt from the policy. However, if a domain
> name that has been placed on the Reserved Common Names List is not renewed
> and is deleted, the system will not permit the domain name to be
> re-registered at the second level. The name(s) would be available only as a
> part of 3rd level registrations.****
>
> ** **
>
> Usually, when a Whois look-up is done for say ‘smith.name’ from the
> Reserved Common Names List the following message appears:****
>
> "Not available for second level registration.  Third level registrations
> may be available on this shared name."****
>
> ** **
>
> What we learned this week is that when a grandfathered domain is deleted
> that is on the Reserved List, the Whois provides this message: "No match".
> We are investigating how and when we can fix this so the standard message
> is provided when grandfathered domains are deleted (i.e., "Not available
> for second level registration. Third level registrations may be available
> on this shared name.").****
>
> ** **
>
> We want to assure everyone that no registrar is doing domain squatting in
> this instance.  All .name registrars have been provided with access to the
> full list of surnames that have been reserved. The registrar provided
> correct information to the prospective registrant but did not appear to
> explain what happens after a grandfathered 2nd level name is deleted.****
>
> ** **
>
> Finally, let me say that we are investigating why there was not a timely
> response to the concerns that were communicated to improve service levels
> in the future.****
>
> ** **
>
> Chuck Gomes, Vice President, Policy****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Hugo Monteiro
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:16 AM
> *To:* George Kirikos
> *Cc:* ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Oracle-Info-DL
> *Subject:* Re: .name WHOIS accuracy (was Re: [ga] repost: Domain not
> available)****
>
> ** **
>
> Hello George,
>
> I should have said Verisign. I contacted Verisign, through their live chat
> support at the time, not Network Solutions. My bad.
>
> It is odd. Even more that they already had almost 3 months to correct the
> whois database and that didn't happen.
> I also found the earlier response troubling. "Yes, it used to be
> registered but now we decided that it would be reserved for 3rd level
> registration only. But it's also not available for 3rd level registration
> right now. It's on a special reserved list for now."
> That was 2 and a half months ago.
>
> I'm Cc'ing this to the email contact and see if it gets anywhere...
>
> Regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> Hugo Monteiro.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:53 PM, George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:****
>
> Hi Hugh,
>
> Network Solutions isn't the operator of .name -- I believe that you should
> contact VeriSign:
>
>
> http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/domain-names/name/index.xhtml
>
>
> If you look at the WHOIS for smith.name, it says:
>
> http://whois-search.com/whois/smith.name
>
> "Not available for second level registration.
> Third level registrations may be available on this shared name."
>
> Performing the same WHOIS lookup for mafalda.name:
>
> http://whois-search.com/whois/mafalda.name
>
> "No match."
>
>
> If mafalda.name really is reserved for 3rd-level registrations, it's odd
> that the WHOIS isn't similar to that of smith.name. VeriSign should
> either correct the WHOIS database, or let you register the name. You might
> also try using the WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System:
>
> http://wdprs.internic.net/
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hugo Monteiro <hugo.monteiro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:58 AM
> Subject: [ga] repost: Domain not available
>
>
> This is a repost of a message i sent to compliance@xxxxxxxxx, which
> apparently is the proper address to report these kind of activities. This
> repost, into this list, is happening since the original message was sent
> six days ago and i have not received any response, not even an automated
> aknowledgement.
>
> --- snip ---
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I have tried to register the domain mafalda.name on October 31 of 2012.
> It was a domain name that was registered by someone else and that had let
> the registry expire.
> I have checked the domain availability by querying the whois database,
> which confirmed me that the domain name was not found on the database.
> I have tried to register the domain through two different registrars. They
> both accepted my registry submission but later have told me that the domain
> was not available after all.
> I have submitted this issue to the GA mailing list and received response
> from Mr Atif Beg telling me to further inquire the reasons of this
> behaviour and to submit this complain if i was to find that there was
> evidence of non compliance (~PDW-469171).
> My further inquiry was directly made to Network Solutions, which manages
> the .name space and i was told, back then, that the particular domain was
> being reserved for third level registrations only. That was not the case
> for the previous registration since the second level domain mafalda.name was
> registered by someone else before.
> It's now the 10th of January, two and a half months have gone by, and
> still that domain is not listed on the whois database and i still cannot
> register it either. This behavior is unacceptable and Network Solutions is
> performing domain squatting in the hopes that there are many interested
> parties so that they can market the domain for third level registration
> only.
> Please take the appropriate actions so that the domain name mafalda.name gets
> available for registration, like it already should be, by now.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Hugo Monteiro.
>
> --- snip ---
>
>
> Again, i can't stress how unfortunate all these matters are.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Hugo Monteiro.
>
> --
> fct.unl.pt:~# cat .signature
>
> Hugo Monteiro
> Email    : hugo.monteiro@xxxxxxxxxx
> Telefone : +351 212947894
>                 +351 212948300 Ext.15307
>
> Divisão de Informática
> Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da
>                   Universidade Nova de Lisboa
> Quinta da Torre   2829-516 Caparica   Portugal
> Telefone: +351 212947894   Fax: +351 212948548
> www.fct.unl.pt                apoio@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> fct.unl.pt:~# _****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> fct.unl.pt:~# cat .signature
>
> Hugo Monteiro
> Email    : hugo.monteiro@xxxxxxxxxx
> Telefone : +351 212947894
>                 +351 212948300 Ext.15307
>
> Divisão de Informática
> Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da
>                   Universidade Nova de Lisboa
> Quinta da Torre   2829-516 Caparica   Portugal
> Telefone: +351 212947894   Fax: +351 212948548
> www.fct.unl.pt                apoio@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> fct.unl.pt:~# _ ****
>



-- 
fct.unl.pt:~# cat .signature

Hugo Monteiro
Email    : hugo.monteiro@xxxxxxxxxx
Telefone : +351 212947894
                +351 212948300 Ext.15307

Divisão de Informática
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da
                  Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Quinta da Torre   2829-516 Caparica   Portugal
Telefone: +351 212947894   Fax: +351 212948548
www.fct.unl.pt                apoio@xxxxxxxxxx

fct.unl.pt:~# _