RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports

[admin@consumer.net (admin)]

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@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