[OT] Public Interest Registry whois date stamp error [telecom]

  • Moderator's Note: Although OT, I think this post will help some poor *
  • sod to avoid the same mistake my sisters made when they lost the *
  • domain name for their business. Followups have been set to *
  • net.internet.dns.policy, which is a better place for this thread. *

Public Interest Registry is the current holder of root DNS of .org .

An organization I am associated with lost control of its domain name. godaddy.com has a backorder process that monitors changes in domain status to put in bids immediately upon a domain becoming available for registration by anyone. I am using this process to reclaim the domain.

Domain names must be renewed in advance by the registrant. When that doesn't happen, the name is renewed for a year by the root registry. The old registrar retains control of the domain for 45 days (or shorter, but they all sit on it for the maximum period) waiting for the old registrant to renew it. If the old registrant has not renewed it, there is a 30 day redemption grace period during which the old registrant still has an opportunity to renew the domain through the old registrar.

If the old registrant still hasn't renewed the domain, it goes into redemption hold period for five days, and then is released. The old registrant cannot renew the domain during RHP.

I knew that today was the 75th day since the domain's registration expired, so I was expected to note that it was now in RHP status. I didn't get an automated message from godaddy.com and the log of status message changes had not been updated.

Registrars rely upon the whois server maintained by PIR for notice of status changes. When I checked PIR's whois server myself, I found that the domain is in RHP but the date stamp was October 17. I brought this to godaddy's attention, concerned that godaddy.com won't put the bid in at the correct time and I'll miss the opportunity to reclaim the name on the off chance that someone else awaits it.

Alas, godaddy.com said they would not send a query to PIR. I contacted PIR. I was surprised that someone took my call. However, she said PIR relies on the old registrar to report status changes on a timely basis and the PIR cannot correct false information. She invited me to use ICANN's dispute resolution process.

Finally, I contacted the old registrar and found someone who would write up notes and pass it along to the person in charge of domains, so we'll see if the status's date stamp gets corrected.

Given the political pitfalls and potential for favoritism in registering domain names, it's very curious indeed one of the root registries lacks basic safeguards against receiving status changes with a false date stamp. Should a date stamp 31 days in the past cause the submission to be rejected and sent back to the registrar?

I assume this was a glitch that will be corrected now that I've brought it to the registrar's attention. Nevertheless, if someone was trying to gain unfair advantage in order to obtain a domain name with potentially significant commercial value, with no safeguards to check on date stamps, this might be an invitation to cause trouble.

Reply to
Adam H. Kerman
Loading thread data ...

On the off chance that someone posted a followup to my article to net.internet.dns.policy, that newsgroup isn't considered to be an existing newsgroup. net.* newsgroups were Usenet II newsgroups, an experimental News medium in which syntax was strictly enforced, binary file attachments weren't allowed, topicality was enforced, and most important, articles were not distributed to or from News servers foreign to the Usenet II News network. Usenet II News administrators were expected to actively enforce posting rules against their own users and if a rule was broken anyway, they were expected to honor cancel messages (retromoderation) issued by "czars", a Usenet II term.

net.* newsgroups were often redundant of Big 8 and alt.* groups, although it had a good number that weren't redundant. In any event, Usenet II was a lot of work for its participating News administrators and there weren't enough users highly motivated to use its newsgroups in lieu of "regular" groups. As far as I know, none of the Usenet II servers still exist, but the Web site does if anyone was curious about the rules:

formatting link
I never used these newsgroups myself, so my comments are third hand.

Bill at first sent me a rejection note, so I reposted the article to comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains. If anyone has a followup, post it to that newsgroup, please. It's a moribund newsgroup so I'm really not anticipating a thread developing.

fwiw, I did finally reach the correct technical guy at the old registrar to bring the matter of the incorrect date stamp to his attention, and he finally understands the issue, which he didn't from the problem ticket.

Of course, I still don't understand why the .org root registry accepted a status update with an erroneous date stamp (off by a month) at all.

***** Moderator's Note *****

"... syntax was strictly enforced, binary file attachments weren't allowed, [and] topicality was enforced ... "

Sounds like a nice, safe place. ;-)

I got the name of the group from a list of Usenet groups that I found via Google, and I admit, as I wrote to Adam, that this is a chink in my Know-It-All armor.

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
Adam H. Kerman

A domain currently in effect with significant commercial value is almost certainly carefully monitored by the company's IT unit. A smart practice is to renew for multiple years when a year, or so, is still remaining.

Further, some domain names have copyright protection, which works strongly to the favor of a large company.

I recall that TWA was slow to get a website. Some guy in Los Angeles already had the domain. TWA's lawyers "politely" pointed out that "TWA" had a lot of copyright protection and surely he didn't want to be on the wrong end of a lawsuit. He gave it up rather quickly.

Reply to
Sam Spade

No they don't. No domain name can be copyrighted.

Many domain names are protected under trademark laws, which are far less uniform in application than copyright.


Reply to
Garrett Wollman

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.