Domain suspended because off address

[khalid]

The main domain for my employer was suspended, I phoned Nominet to be advised 123-reg did this because they couldn't verify my address?

I found out the whois information needs to match the business registered office address otherwise the domain will be suspended...has anyone heard of this?

Am I out the loop on something or is this just crap?

 

[foz]

Widespread.

http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/domain-name-news/130938-uk-suspension-problems.html

 

[DaveP]

Am I right in assuming your employer's website thus went down? I do wonder if there is ground to sue 123-reg or Nominet for causing downtime of services?

 

[khalid]

Am I right in assuming your employer's website thus went down? I do wonder if there is ground to sue 123-reg or Nominet for causing downtime of services?

yes and its still down...and guess what i'm told it'll take upwards of 3 hours!

 

[khalid]

I've just sent off a 3 page letter to Nominet and 123-Reg. It became a blame game between them and I just refused to get off the phone until they resolved it.

Second line support in Nominet did it all manually. I'm going to get a TAG to avoid having to deal with 3rd parties any longer.

 

[foz]

All this whois purification is pointless. A nefarious entity can still register with a stolen identity and genuine street address.

 

[xdnet]

All this whois purification is pointless. A nefarious entity can still register with a stolen identity and genuine street address.

I think it serve some purpose, it's good to have good quality data - Although that said claiming it'll stop criminals is naive for the reasons you stated.

Seems silly that we're required to suspend domains because of some obscure data quality issue with the address - More understandable if there is a real complaint and the registrant doesn't respond but the false positives is just way too high to justify the burden.

 

[khalid]

I

Why not post it here, redacting out the personal bits?

Having your own tag doesn't negate having to deal with the registry.

(from Note 3)

Ok here you go;

Dear Nominet & 123-Reg,

Domain names removed.

I write to you both to express my absolute disgust as the recent Domain Name Validation Process you have both implemented.

Without warning, my primary business domain name was suspended and I was without access to both website and email for an entire day. I had to spend my entire time constantly emailing, telephoning and sitting on live chat eagerly awaiting some action so I could give over 100 people access to their email again.

In the current financial climate do you know how fragile the construction industry is? Do you have any idea how difficult it is for a company to operate without its main source of marketing and all electronic communication even just for a day?

Furthermore, between both of you neither could address the issue simply. It was a game of “lets blame each other” whilst I was in the middle, explaining to a 123-Reg Customer Service Advisor what the difference between a Trading Address and Registered Office was!

What makes you think it is reasonable to simply suspend a domain name without making any attempt the owner, especially when it is a critical business platform? It is MY domain, I should be able to make any action on it without you and if I need you then your response should be speedy and effective.

Now at this point I assume you’ll suggest that I received an email, which I checked and I did not. But even if I did and I chose to ignore it, do you not think it would be advisable to have some other procedure in place to avoid businesses having to bombard you with help after the fact? Perhaps a letter or telephone call? After all, if you were so inclined to ensure the Registered Office is correct surely a letter to that address would provide better validation that the farce I was put through?

I know of no other business dealings whereby one party can simply act in such a manner without reasonable warning yet you both seem to think it is acceptable. Our business turns over £6 million per annum, equivalent to over £16,000 per day – are either of you going to contribute to the loss of earnings?

To add insult to injury, the entire re-validation process is flawed;

1. The registration details needs to match the Registered Office, yet most businesses do not operate from a Registered Office or have any staff there. Our domains were set to our main Trading Address yet this was not good enough, even when we supplied a utility bill.

2. The re-validation needs to be sent to the administrative email address, but this won’t work if the domain is suspended!

3. The re-validation does not work as 123-Reg’s own Advisor did not receive the email to verify the domain details either!

Your level of service during this issue has been pathetic and whilst I can move to another registrar I am ultimately still stuck with Nominet to deal with my domain names. As a Government Body surely you have a duty of care to the tax payer and domain owner?

No doubt I’ll expect some copy and pasted “we’re sorry, your feedback is important to us” letter back from you both, but that’s simply not good enough. What I’d like to get back from you both is the following;

1. Proof “reasonable effort” was made in advising the domain owner their domain would be suspended should they fail to reply to the data validation claim.

2. Any policy which I have agreed to that specifically states you are simply able to suspend a domain name if your own validation fails and I need to wait around for you to fix it without any time limit.

3. Any recorded telephone conversation pertaining to the problems today.

4. Your comments on the handling of my situation.

Finally, to Nominet, I wish to raise a formal complaint against 123-Reg for their handling of my domains today. I enclose copies of my communication showing their utter incompetence today and I will be purchasing a TAG to avoid having to register any further domains with them.

Further expense and frustration from me yet you both go unscathed.

Yours Sincerely,

Khalid Khames.
Head of Marketing & IT


p.s Vicky from Nominet was the only nice person I have spoken too. I said my query wasn’t resolved in the survey but that’s not a reflection on her, it is a reflection on the entire situation.

Enc. Live chat with 123-reg and two support tickets raised.

 

[foz]

Thanks for sharing khalid.

.com is looking good right now.

 

[xdnet]

Unfortunately Nominet isn't a Government body, just a plain old' company with no official government authority.

Also, as much as I disagree with a lot of the DQ policy from Nominet, this sounds like the problem is with 123-reg.

As an accredited registrar they have full authority to verify the domain themselves once presented with reasonable evidence that the details are valid. E.g. when you show them a utility bill. - I verify domains based on this on a daily basis, once we see that, it's verified and case closed.

 

[ratboy]

This may have been covered before... the ridiculous thing is this:

As long as the address in the whois automatically matches Nominet's address database, then it's fine. You do not have to prove you reside at that address.

You could in fact register a domain at 10 Downing Street.

Makes no sense at all - and is not a security thing for these reasons.

 

[xdnet]

This may have been covered before... the ridiculous thing is this:

As long as the address in the whois automatically matches Nominet's address database, then it's fine. You do not have to prove you reside at that address.

You could in fact register a domain at 10 Downing Street.

Makes no sense at all - and is not a security thing for these reasons.

This is my issue with the fact that a lot of the argument for data validation (both Nominet and within ICANN) is for LEAs to stop the bad guys.

Only a naive fool would think this is in anyway a barrier. Fine, you can't put 123 Fake Street, Fakesville, FA5 3PO... but putting someone elses is fine.

It won't stop the bad guys, it just is a burden on registrants. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm for improved data quality but it doesn't need to result in suspending the domain unless there is a formal complaint against the registrant and they fail to respond.

 

[Skinner]

Here:

Data Quality Policy: The COO introduced a review of the new Data Quality Policy.

The Chair advised that she had received a letter on behalf of a group of registrars expressing a commitment to accuracy of registrant data, but dissatisfaction with the application of the new policy in practice.

The signatories included Host Europe Group and Fibranet and hence Oliver Hope and Dickie Armour declared their potential conflict of interest in this discussion.

The Board reviewed the policy and reconfirmed the importance of Nominet having complete, accurate and up to date registrant data. It was agreed that the registrar concerns needed to be addressed.

The Executive were asked to consider the practical problems that had been encountered by accredited channel partners and to present their views at the next meeting.