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

[Hugo Monteiro <hugo.monteiro@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Chuck,

It's not just a case of MX records. If you read the response for the dig
command you will see that status for smith.name domain is NOERROR while for
mafalda.name is a clear NXDOMAIN, meaning it does not exist.
I also take the chance to clarify that Mafalda is a first name, and not a
surname. The premises used don't really apply.
Even so, I would like to register a 3rd level domain name, in the
mafalda.name hierarchy. Please tell me how can i do it since i can't seem
to find a way to do it. No registrar knows the 2nd level domain apparently.
I even tried getting some information www.mafalda.name doesn't exist also
(must be the same problem as with the MX records?). But i did try smith.nameand
john.name. Both opened up a "advertised parking page" from directnic. Is
that supposed to happen?
Is it just me that finds all this highly irregular?

Regards,

Hugo Monteiro.


On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Hugo,****
>
> ** **
>
> When a name is put on the Reserved Common Names List it has no effects on
> DNS – no resource records are added. The reason there are MX records for
> smith.name is that we have third-level Email Forwarding registrations
> <firstname>@smith.name, and for our email forwarding solution to work
> these MX records are added for smith.name. If someone now for example
> registers <firstname>@mafalda.name then MX records would similarly also
> be added for mafalda.name the same way they currently exist for smith.name
> .****
>
> ** **
>
> Chuck****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Hugo Monteiro [mailto:hugo.monteiro@xxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:04 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> *Subject:* Re: .name WHOIS accuracy (was Re: [ga] repost: Domain not
> available)****
>
>  ** **
>
> 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:~# _ ****
>



-- 
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:~# _