RE: [registrars] Whois expiration dates

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@directi.com>]

> I do not believe that this is possible for 2 reasons:
>   1) Changes are prohibited after a Transfer request has been initiated.
> For example, if you try to change a domain's DNS servers or status after a
> Transfer request has been sent, an RRP 553 error occurs.
>   2) A explicit Renew has a grace period of 5 days.  So if a Transfer is
> ACK'ed less than 5 days after the explicit Renew occurs, the renewal is
> taken away.

I dont think this is true. The graceperiod you talk of is the DELETE grace
period and not the transfer grace period. If a domain name is explicitly
renewed then a transfer does not take away the renewal year

i maybe wrong

bhavin

>
> Face it, the RRP was designed to allow Transfers during the 45 days after
> expiration.  And it was designed to fairly return auto-renewal fees to the
> losing Registrar when the name wasn't renewed with that Registrar.  There
> are only 3 options here:
>
> 1) Registrars must allow Transfers after expiration without charging the
> customer a renewal fee.  (Note I say RENEWAL fee.)
>  - or -
> 2) Registrars must NACK Transfers for domains that are renewed after their
> expiration date for a period of 45 days after the original
> expiration date.
>  - or -
> 3) Verisign must eliminate the refund of the Auto-renewal fee and
> subtraction of the reneal year after a domain is transferred away
> to support
> Registrars' current policies of requiring an old-Registrar renewal before
> allowing a Transfer.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Lampson
> The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@directi.com>
> To: "Tom D'Alleva" <tdalleva@bulkregister.com>; <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 11:02 AM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Whois expiration dates
>
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> i believe this is not the issue with NSI updating the dates - any domain
> transferred during AUTO-RENEW period always loses the year that was added
> due to auto-renew
>
> Registrars should actually be nice enuf to add that year explicitly at the
> time of ACKING the trfer request
>
> bhavin
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Tom D'Alleva
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 7:15 PM
> > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Whois expiration dates
> >
> >
> > Bruce,
> > Mike's theory is very close to reality. The only point he missed
> > is that NSI
> > does not update the expiration date for 60 days not 45 days.  That means
> > that customers that pay NSI to renew their names must wait an
> > additional 60
> > days before attempting to transfer or else the expiration date is not
> > correctly updated, resulting in the loss of a year.
> >
> > This problem was reported to ICANN by a customer and
> forwardedto both you
> > and I by Ken Stubbs a FEW months ago. I'm attaching the email thread to
> > refresh your memory.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom D'Alleva" <tdalleva@bulkregister.com>
> > To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>; "Beckwith, Bruce"
> > <bbeckwith@netsol.com>
> > Cc: <ross@tucows.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:23 PM
> > Subject: RE: Domain Renewal / Transfer between registrars problem
> >
> >
> > > Ken and Bruce,
> > > I was just informed by my support staff that this situation occurs
> > regularly
> > > with NSI.  If a registrant pays to renew their registration and then
> > > transfers out within a 45 day time frame, Network Solution does
> > not update
> > > the renewal date at the registry.  If this, in fact, is NSI
> > policy, then I
> > > believe that the only solution lies with ICANN or the courts.  I'm not
> > sure
> > > if this is one of the issues that Ross is working on
> regarding transfers
> > but
> > > it should be.
> > >
> > > If this is not the case, then I'm willing to do whatever is needed to
> > > address these unique aberrations.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:24 PM
> > > > To: Beckwith, Bruce; tdalleva@bulkregister.com
> > > > Subject: Fw: Domain Renewal / Transfer between registrars problem
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > hapy new years guys...
> > > >
> > > > i received this in my capacity as names council rep and am
> > > > fowarding this to
> > > > you guys "off list" .
> > > >
> > > > in the hope that we can get this guy's problems clarified &
> resolved.
> > > >
> > > > please advise me as to what we can do collectively to make this "go
> > away"
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > > > ken
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: <xxxxxxxxxx to protect the customer>
> > > > To: <kstubbs@dninet.net>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:14 PM
> > > > Subject: Domain Renewal / Transfer between registrars problem
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I don't know if I'm asking the right person or not.  If
> not, please
> > > > > point me in the right direction.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both registrars involved suggested I contact the "global registry"
> > > > > with this problem:
> > > > >
> > > > > The domain name air1wireless.com had expired 21-Dec-2001.  As
> > > > > a result, it was "locked".  We paid Network Solutions $35 to renew
> > > > > it for one year.  After the renewal was complete, and the domain
> > > > > was unlocked, we transfered it to BulkRegister.  Part of the
> > > > > agreement we have with BulkRegister is any domain name we
> > > > > transfer to them gets automatically extended by one year.  After
> > > > > the transfer to BulkRegister was complete, we noticed the
> > > > > additional year had not been added.
> > > > >
> > > > > We contacted BulkRegister.  They told us that when they received
> > > > > the domain, it was set to expire 21-Dec-2001, and they added a
> > > > > year, extending it to 21-Dec-2002.  We then contacted Network
> > > > > Solutions, who told us that they had renewed it for one
> > year prior to
> > > > > the transfer.  To document this, they faxed us a copy of
> the receipt
> > > > > showing the renewal.
> > > > >
> > > > > I then went back to BulkRegister.  They once again informed me
> > > > > that they had renewed it for one year, and it was now set
> to expire
> > > > > 21-Dec-2002.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was then told that I should "verify with the global
> > registry", which
> > > > > is where I hope I am now.  I found plenty of information on domain
> > > > > name disputes, but nothing on expiration date disputes.  I hope
> > > > > you can help me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> >
> > Needless to say, this practice not only creates a customer
> support problem
> > for the gaining registrar but it adds to the general distrust and
> > demise of
> > the domain name industry.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Beckwith, Bruce
> > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 2:27 PM
> > > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: RE: [registrars] Whois expiration dates
> > >
> > >
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > > Your theory is interesting, but unfortunately, not based on fact.
> > >
> > > Though we believe that our engineers are unrivaled, we find that being
> > > human, they do make mistakes sometimes.  The issues experienced
> > with these
> > > few domains were due to a software bug, which was unintentional (by
> > > definition).  Though the bug was corrected shortly after it was
> > introduced
> > > and found, the fact that it had affected several domains was not
> > > discovered
> > > until I was recently given a heads-up by our good friends at
> > Register.com.
> > > As I've stated earlier, this issue is on the engineering queue to be
> > > resolved in the near term.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mike Lampson [mailto:lampson@iaregistry.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 1:22 PM
> > > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [registrars] Whois expiration dates
> >
> > > Bruce,
> > >
> > > Upon further discussion in our office, we have a theory.
> Maybe you can
> > > confirm or refute it.
> > >
> > > When a name is past expiration at VeriSign, the customer has
> to renew it
> > > with you before it can be Transferred to another Registrar.  The
> > > 3 instances
> > > that we have seen in the past 2 weeks have all been names that
> > we tried to
> > > Transfer, were Nacked because were past expiration, then
> renewed by the
> > > current Registrant/Administrator.  The expiration date then seems to
> > > disappear from Whois.
> > >
> > > At least 1 of these names we tried to Transfer again at this
> point.  The
> > > Transfer was ACK'ed at VeriSign and the Transfer completed.  Of
> > course the
> > > customer lost their year of renewal since the domain was not
> > more than 45
> > > days past its original expiration date (the grace period for
> > > auto-renewals).
> > >
> > > We haven't confirmed this yet, but we were wondering if the
> > > expiration date
> > > would reappear on the 46th day past the original expiration
> > date when the
> > > Transfer could be done without the customer losing their renewal year?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Mike Lampson
> > > The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>