« FedEx: They Absolutely, Positively Should Have Gotten it Right the First Time | Main | Can't Navigate Out of a Paper Bag »

Punished by eNom for a Registration Placeholder - Comments

Comment Page:  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6 

Interesting that somebody else picked up the connotation about Customer Service. Companies employ way too many people who impress themselves more with being right than being responsive to the customer.

What? Somebody MIGHT get away with something? Then deal with it when it happens, rather than assuming guilt until he proves himself innocent. By the logic of some, it would seem cops are justified in throwing down on jaywalkers, with guns drawn, bacause they BROKE the law(!) after all, you know.

Randy, perhaps you should consider registering a complaint with ICANN, which apparently oversees domain registrars.

This article notes that ICANN may "revoke Registerfly's domain accreditation unless the company cleans up its act in the next 15 days," which they are considering in the case of Registerfly due to many complaints of "grossly negligent handling of domain registrations." Many customers complained about "domains that were not automatically renewed as agreed, or were paid for and for no apparent reason allowed to lapse well before the agreed upon expiration date."

Then again, The Register isn't sure what, if anything, ICANN can or will do: "Now one of the largest registrars on the internet, Registerfly for years acted as a reseller for eNom.com, until splitting off on its own and receiving its own accreditation from ...ICANN. What amounts to 'accreditation' at this point is anyone's guess."

Randy said in the update: "I hereby state: All the information on the domain registration is accurate. Is that what you need?"

And they accepted that?!?!

Not that they really have many other options, but if the whole point of having valid information is to prevent unreputable persons (like phishers and spammers) from making bogus sites, then how do the ISPs think such people are going to respond? Accepting a quick "Yup, looks good” is like trusting the fox to give an accurate accounting of the chickens in the hen house.

I'm not sure what more could be done, considering the massive number of websites out there, but if they get a complaint about a site not having correct contact info, you would think they might try, oh, I don't know, maybe contacting the owner through that info to verify it. Not just a quick email, either, though that would be the cheapest and easiest step, especially if it is due to an automated sweep of the owner database that picked up bogus phone numbers like 555-1111. Maybe an automated phone call with an automated system to verify the contact information, or even a little postcard to the contact address that says "go to this website to verify your contact information" could be the next step. If the owner does not receive or respond to the call or the card, then that would be some really good proof that the information is bogus. By only taking these steps with sites that have legitimate complaints (from users that claim they couldn't contact the owner, for instance) they wouldn't even be taking on that much more cost.

Then again, if they're making money by charging fines and fees to reactivate accounts or are getting more money selling choice domains at the higher current rates, they really have no incentive to do this.

---

Yes, they accepted that. Their reply was, "That is exactly what we need in order to fulfill our obligation with
ICANN. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter." Gives you all sorts of warm fuzzies about how accurate whois information is, doesn't it?! -rc

I never gave it any thought. I bought a domain name when I owned another company and listed the company as the owner. I've since dissolved the company but kept the domain name and renew it each year. I just looked at the WHOIS information and so much of it is now incorrect. I have to wonder if there will suddenly be a flood of complaints, and an automatic shutdown due to my "obvious" intent to defraud the internet community at large.

Sometimes the registrar makes it IMPOSSIBLE for one to update info even if you want to. I had owned my old domain for 8 years. I registered it when I lived in California and in the next 7 years I moved several times. Since my site is basically a hobby site, it just didn't occur to me to update the info until I read an article last year that said sites would be shut down if they didn't have up to date info.

Well, I started trying to update. Since I no longer had the email address that I had registered with, I couldn't change it because their verification email bounced back. So I started trying to get a human to help me. They finally sent me a fax form to fill out. OK!! I thought I was ready. But no, I had to have a recent utility bill with my name on it from my registration address--a place I hadn't lived for 7 years. I didn't have any bills from there. It got comical. They kept telling me to send them bits of info--plus the old utility bills. About that time I decided to register a different domain so I just dropped the issue...and the domain.

Forgive me if I missed that someone may have made this point already, but it seems to me that it would be a better solution and 100% viable that Enom, rather than creating a filter to shut down sites with obviously illegitimate phone numbers, they perhaps could simply deny the submission of a form if it contained an obviously fake phone number? It could even state that the reason for the refusal is that the phone number must be a valid one. They could even have an automated email verification system to ensure that they at least have some means of contacting you before shutting your site down without notice. Don't tell me it can't be done or is impractical. It's been done before.

The best solution in my book is http://domainsbyproxy.com

I use it on more than one of my websites and it totally shields my private information.

Just a word to spell out one of the oldest adages in the consumer world: "You get what you pay for". The original registrar, Network Solutions, is still the best, as far as I'm concerned. I've never heard of any of this stuff happening there. I had a phone number that was no longer working and an email address that I never logged into for years, while I was battling a major illness. And yet, there were no "complaints". Note, however, that NetSol allows access via an account w/ username and pwd, and I had been renewing the name via login. I did, however, have to reactivate my old email account in order to make changes, or it would have been very difficult (process involving faxing scan of driver's license).

I have been complaining for years about many of these registrar practices, and even sent a letter at one time to the FCC. No response. I think there needs to be an organized consumer effort. Here are some of the things that I find unfair consumer practices:

(*) You spend a long time thinking up your special, snappy-sounding domain name. You spend hours poring over the dictionary, thesaurus, and other literature, and come up with a great name. You go register it. Now, who really "owns" the name? You? Or the registrar? Really what the $35/yr covers, as far as I'm concerned, is the propagation across name servers. It can't be a rental fee for the name, can it, because you thought it up and own it, right? WRONG, because if you are late paying the $35/yr fee, then Network Solutions (or other registrar) can just take it from you. Or, as we have seen, GoDaddy and enom and the likes can take a domain due to "inaccurate" WHOIS info. The only protection you have is to get a trademark on the base part of the name so that nobody else can use it, should the name expire or be taken away, and nobody can register it under any other extensions.

(*) My original complaint to the FCC was about the practice that registrars use of trying to get you to buy/rent the name you so carefully thought up with all other available extensions. You register GreatNameIdea.com, and when you next login to your account at the registrar, they bombard you with messages saying, "GreatNameIdea.org, .net, .info, .tv (etc.) are all still available! Hurry and get them now, or we will sell them to somebody else!" I have always considered this to be a form of a ransom notice, and told the FCC as much. When you are the person who did all the hard work to come up with a creative name, you should own the name under ALL its extensions. One idea would be to separate the name registration itself (perhaps in some government database) from the actual name server propagation service (which is exactly that -- a service). I say that the base part of the name (the part before the dot) belongs to whoever thinks it up (unless they're violating a copyright or trademark) and should not be usable under any other extension. Why should they be able to make money off your good idea? Why should you have to pay to keep this from happening?

(*) The next practice that I don't think should occur is more recent, but just as disgusting (and is the basis for these cancellations due to inaccurate WHOIS info). The domain registrars are allowed to (or simply do, of their own accord -- not sure which) make the WHOIS information public in a big database that they put out. Spammers use this to bombard people with ads. People falsify their info specifically because they don't want to be hounded with emails, phone calls, etc. Now, along comes registrar and says, we can make the info private, but it's going to cost you. This is another form of ransom: we have your information, and unless you pay us, we'll make sure that bad things will happen to it. Is this even legal? My domains are privately owned, and my number is in the "Do Not Call" registry! I believe that the domain registrars should be forced to allow an "opt out", at no charge, from having one's information published.

So these are my complaints, and I believe that they are all valid. What is needed is an organized consumer effort to approach Congress about this, or nothing will ever be done. The power has gone to the domain registrars' heads, and they are abusing it to ransom consumers. It's just not right, especially for small businesses or private owners who have very small budgets!

I have some domains with Enom, which I'm in the process of transferring. Anyway, some of the domains I wasn't sure if I wanted to keep or not, so as I was doing the transfer requests, I was checking stats. One domain in particular that was parked had never received a click, which I thought was odd. So I checked the dns within enom and it was clearly where I intended to have it pointed. But then I checked the whois history to see if I had just pointed it recently, and perhaps it had not resolved yet.

The whois on outside Registrars had the domain listed with the privacy feature. I thought that is odd. I went back and checked to see if I had used the privacy feature (which I rarely do, and never recommend), as if you are the victim of domain theft you're just asking for 99% more aggravation in proving that you owned the domain if you had it listed with privacy. Anyway, not only was the domain on "privacy" but the name servers were not pointed at the parking page I had set, and that enom was showing in my account.

I bought the domain approximately 11 months earlier, and thru more research it had never been put in my name anywhere thru outside whois historical records, and had been kept "private" the whole time I owned it. My enom account showed all my contact information, and that the domain was not on privacy! AND totally different dns info. I've never seen anything like this. I'm waiting for enom response. But this is really scarey how this could be so screwed up. I'll keep you posted. I ran across your enom issues after searching to see if anyone else had problems with them.

We have been logged out of our enom account for two month now and getting help form support has proven be to rather very difficult.

It's just too difficult and frustrating to get help from Enom Support.

Comment Page:  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6 

(Read the article that everyone's commenting on.)