<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: .name WHOIS accuracy (was Re: [ga] repost: Domain not available)
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: .name WHOIS accuracy (was Re: [ga] repost: Domain not available)
- From: Hugo Monteiro <hugo.monteiro@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:02:30 +0000
Clarification: The advertisement pages are available on www.smith.name and
www.john.name, and nor smith.name / john.name.
R's,
Hugo Monteiro.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Hugo Monteiro <hugo.monteiro@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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.name and 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:~# _
>
--
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:~# _
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|