GB.COM Service Interruption

[dotNetFreak]

It would appear that gb.com domain names are no longer functioning as normal and are currently resolving to a site operated by GB.COM Ltd.

Received in the last hour from CentralNic:

Unfortunately, the service CentralNic has been providing for domains ending .gb.com has been interrupted. We are currently taking legal advice about this and will be taking urgent steps to restore the service, but we cannot achieve that instantly.

Therefore, if your customers' service has been interrupted and you have an urgent need for resumption of the service it may be in their interests in order to avoid or mitigate loss, to sign up to the service offered by "GB.Com Limited," promoted on some interrupted sites, for a temporary period.

In so writing we do not acknowledge that GB.Com Limited has any entitlement to provide the service they are offering and nor do we take any responsibility for the service you may receive from them, but we are writing to you on a pragmatic basis and putting your interests as our customers ahead of our own.

At no time has this incident affected any other domain suffixes operated by CentralNic.

 

[namealot]

I thought the director/ceo’s of GB.com Ltd and CentralNic, is the same person… very strange?

 

[blacknight]

There's been some coverage on domain blogs about this:
http://domainincite.com/fight-over-gb-com-claims-thousands-of-victims/
http://www.internetnews.me/2011/07/30/centralnics-gb-com-in-dispute-gb-com-now-wildcarded/
(disclosure - the second one is mine)

 

[aZooZa]

Shocking. Why ICANN don't step in and stop this nonsense, I have no idea.

 

[blacknight]

Shocking. Why ICANN don't step in and stop this nonsense, I have no idea.

Why would ICANN get involved?

This appears to be a legal dispute between the registrant of gb.com and Centralnic

 

[aZooZa]

Why would ICANN get involved?

This appears to be a legal dispute between the registrant of gb.com and Centralnic

I think the premise of ICANN-approved registrars punting privately-owned sub-domains is wrong. There should be more transparency - i.e. a warning at the POS stating the facts and potential pitfalls.

 

[blacknight]

I think the premise of ICANN-approved registrars punting privately-owned sub-domains is wrong. There should be more transparency - i.e. a warning at the POS stating the facts and potential pitfalls.

I still don't see what this has to do with ICANN.

ICANN only has say about gTLD registrars and registries
You do not need to be an ICANN accredited registrar to offer Centralnic domains, much as you do not need to be ICANN accredited to offer co.nl or co.no domains ..

Also .. .. warning people about "facts" and "pitfalls" ?

 

[aZooZa]

Thanks invincible - that's what I meant. You've also illustrated another debacle. I hope people take heed and stop buying these 'domains'.

 

[dotNetFreak]

It appears that CentralNic have now created accounts with GB.COM Ltd. for all of their registrars (or are in the process of doing so) and a lot of the domains are now working again.

It does seem however that 3 letter gb.com's aren't working (classed as too short by GB.COM Ltd's system) and also some "premium" names aren't working...

 

[Edwin]

It appears that CentralNic have now created accounts with GB.COM Ltd. for all of their registrars (or are in the process of doing so) and a lot of the domains are now working again.

I wonder what that will mean come renewal time. Who is contracted to who, and for how much? And who takes care of disputes? Are GB.com Ltd's registration/dispute policies the same as Centralnic's? What about their privacy policies?

The fact that the names are working again is just the tip of the iceberg...

 

[dotNetFreak]

Just received from CentralNic:

The CentralNic service for domains ending in .gb.com has been fully restored. We apologize for any inconvenience - the interruption was effected without any warning by a third party, and was therefore out of our control.

We thank you for your forbearance and support.