Re: [ga] Registrar problem reports

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Therein lies your problem, you do not see the larger picture.  With these
duopolies everything is tied together and is patterned after a larger scale.
When you separate our objections you write Mr. Goes script, when you tie them
together you create solidarity and a common cause.  But go ahead and have it
your way they have nothing to do with each other!

Eric

adman wrote:

> This doesn't have anything to do with the domain that are locked due to
> being overdue/expired (except in some cases where Verisign registrar says
> the domain overdue when it was actually paid).  others are locked becuse the
> losing registrars says they did not get proper authorization.
>
> The expired issue is another set of locked domains on top of the ones I am
> talking about.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:eric@hi-tek.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 12:43 AM
> To: admin@consumer.net
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar problem reports
>
> Oh no I do not think you should take this out of context with the
> *expired and
> registered to "expireds are us" which are simultaneously listed with a
> registrar/registry reseller for auction*.  Well we have them now what are we
> going to do about it?  Chris and Andy what should we do?
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> admin wrote:
>
> > I don't know what kind of double-talk Gomes is giving here.  According to
> > the messages sent previously from Gomes they currently have about 50,000
> > domains locked because of their error.  In other words, because
> the registry
> > made an error they are causing all kinds of problems for the
> registrars who
> > registered these domains which is causing these registrars to lose money.
> > These registrars happen to be in direct competition with Verisign.
> >
> > Note that the only problem that would occur if the registry did
> not lock the
> > domains is that Verisign would not be able to collect every last
> $6 fee for
> > every single domain year.  Nothing detrimental would happen to the domain
> > owner at all.  There is also absolutely no explanation as to why the
> > registry has locked the DNS settings.  Even if all their other claims were
> > legitimate (which they are not) then they would only need to lock the
> > registrar settings, not the DNS setting.
> >
> > Under the Tucows system one of the main selling points is that
> you no longer
> > have to deal with NSI and e-mail templates to update the records.  This
> > cannot be done when the registry lock.  further, the message sent out by
> > Gomes of the Verisign registry says they may not even make manual
> changes if
> > there are too many.
> >
> > Domain renewals under competition has a very low profit margin.  Once you
> > start requiring manual changes with the registry lock (along with all the
> > locks put on by the Verisign registrar) it makes it very difficult to keep
> > prices low.  This is a coordinated effort by Verisign to disrupt the other
> > registrars any way they can with the hopes of slowing the mass exodus away
> > from Verisign.
> >
> > Even if there was a legitimate error there is no basis for taking
> > weeks/months to correct it.  The fact that Mr. Gomes has been
> asked at least
> > 5 times to explain why the corrections are taking so long.  Mr. Gomes has
> > ignored every request and comes on the list with his usual
> double-talk that
> > he has been giving for years.
> >
> > I suspect this a first test case so Verisign can see what they
> can get away
> > with.    I would not be surprised if all kinds of errors like this started
> > cropping up and Verisign will use it as an excuse to lock more domains and
> > cause more disruptions.
> >
> > Russ Smith
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Gomes,
> > Chuck
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 8:31 PM
> > To: 'admin@consumer.net'; ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports
> >
> > The VeriSign Registry did not lock your names except in the sense that any
> > registrar may lock names in their registration system through RRP commands
> > sent to the SRS.  What I am saying is the Registry did not take any action
> > to lock your names except to provide an operational SRS.  We can take such
> > action using the Registry Lock command but I am confident that that is not
> > the case here.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: admin@consumer.net [mailto:admin@consumer.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:05 AM
> > To: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports
> >
> > I don't know what was pointed out here but the Verisgn registry has locked
> > several of my customer's domains for severa months.  Notices sent out by
> > Verisign have indicated that these domains would be locked for
> several weeks
> > (with no explanation why they are locked for so long) and
> indicated they may
> > or may not be able to make manual changes in a timely manner.
> >
> > This locking of domains byVerisign coincided with the Verisign registrar
> > claims of "slamming"
> > http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cochetti-to-lynn-16jul01.htm.
> > Meanwhile, the Verisgn registrar continues to lock domains without valid
> > justifaction.  Many customers have to put their orders in 3 or 4 times
> > before Verisign will release them.
> >
> > Verisign is disrupting the operations of competing registrars on several
> > fronts.
> >
> > Below is the message I received from Tucows about the domains the Verisign
> > registry has locked.  Gomes refuses to explain why these domain are being
> > locked for so long:
> >
> > ==
> >
> > In June, VeriSign Registry accidentally auto-renewed several domains
> > twice.  As a result, to prevent further problems, these domains have
> > been placed on Registry-Lock.  The domain will function properly, but
> > no transfers or renewals are allowed.  The expected time until they
> > fix this is August 27th (at the earliest).
> >
> > Unfortunately, the only action we are allowed to perform on these
> > domains is a nameserver change.  Following is a list of affected
> > domains.  If you have a client that is getting the following error
> > when attempting to change their nameserver:
> >
> > Unable to add nameserver: Registry error, domain's nameservers not
> > updated [Domain status does not allow for operation]
> >
> > Then it is likely that they are affected by this problem.  Until these
> > domains are fixed by VeriSign, you can email support@opensrs.org.  Be
> > sure to include the domain name in question, and the nameservers you
> > would like this domain to be updated with.
> >
> > ===
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 8:43 AM
> > To: 'admin@consumer.net'; Roeland Meyer; ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports
> >
> > Correction: as has been previously pointed out, the VeriSign
> Registry is not
> > locking domains as suggested below.
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: admin@consumer.net [mailto:admin@consumer.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 2:47 AM
> > To: Roeland Meyer; ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports
> >
> > The complaints I meant was concerning registrars not following the
> > agreement.  specifically as it relates to registrar transfers.
> >
> > I have more than 100 complaints filed so far against Verisign,
> register.com
> > and Names4 ever.  Even the verisign Registry is getting into the
> act and is
> > locking domains.
> >
> > Dan Halloran does nothing and does not answer questions about what actions
> > have been taken.
> >
> > Russ Smith
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 2:41 AM
> > To: 'admin@consumer.net'; ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports
> >
> > They do handle individual complaints. It is just that they
> out-source it to
> > WIPO. It's called UDRP.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: admin@consumer.net [mailto:admin@consumer.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 10:35 PM
> > > To: ga@dnso.org
> > > Subject: [ga] Registrar problem reports
> > >
> > >
> > >  http://www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi
> > >
> > > It says:
> > >
> > > "ICANN does not resolve individual customer complaints. ICANN is a
> > > technical-coordination body. Its primary objective is to
> > > coordinate the
> > > Internet's system of assigned names and numbers to promote stable
> > > operation."
> > >
> > > Why doesn't ICANN resolve individual complaints?  If they
> > > don't then who
> > > does?  Don't they manage the registrar contracts?  If so,
> > > then why don't
> > > they handle individual complaints?
> > >
> > > Russ Smith
> > > http://TheNic.com
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html