Dynadot

Termination of domain registrar MITSU INC by Nixi

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

dnk

Established Member
Impact
301
Received the following message from Nixi

Dear Registrant / Customer,


This is to inform that the registrar account of your current registrar – Mitsu Inc. has been terminated by National Internet Exchange of India(NIXI) which manages the .IN Registry.


In view of the termination, your registrar will not be able to provide you any domain management services for .IN or .भारत (in all supported languages).


In order to protect your rights and commercial interests,.IN Registry hereby informs you to transfer your domain(s) to an alternate Accredited Registrar of .IN Registry of your choice. Please view the link below for the list of registrars - https://registry.in/Accredited_Registrars


You may contact your preferred new registrar on your own for transferring your domain(s) and follow the process as may be advised by the new registrar.


Meanwhile to maintain continuity, .IN Registry is taking over the control of your domain names and if you require any changes to your existing contact details or Nameserver associated with your domain name, you are requested to send an email from your registrant email id, as reflecting in whois records to [email protected].


While moving to a new registrar, you are requested to contact .IN Registry to obtain your domain authorization or “AUTH CODE” – which will be required by the new registrar to initiate transfer of your domain(s).


You are requested to complete the transfer process in the next 15 days from the date of this email. If not, .IN Registry will initiate its own process to transfer your domain to another registrar as may be determined by .IN Registry.

Sincerely yours,
National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI)



Has anyone else received this email, and knows what is the real reason for termination of Mitsu, as it is causing a lot of inconvenience
 
2
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Strange idea to sue Nixi in the US in the first place. AFAIK Nixi and the Indian registry are in India.

Not going to discuss litigation strategy, but they service U.S. customers who can sue them in a forum that's convenient for them, as long as it has jurisdiction (which it does).
 
1
•••
Has anyone filed a case against NIXI outside india till date
 
0
•••
0
•••
Very bad news for .IN domain. I received this message for my main domain...

Dear .IN Domain Name Registrant (under Mitsu Inc.)

This is to inform you that in view of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide order dated November 7, 2017, in the matter Sanjeev Ramniwas Goyal v National Internet Exchange of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (L) No. 3000 of 2017], directing National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) not to take further action/steps in pursuance to the impugned order of termination, henceforth NIXI shall not be able to process any transfer request of your .IN domain name presently under “NIXI Holding Account” , till further directions from the Hon’ble Court.
 
1
•••
Very bad news for .IN domain. I received this message for my main domain...

Dear .IN Domain Name Registrant (under Mitsu Inc.)

This is to inform you that in view of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide order dated November 7, 2017, in the matter Sanjeev Ramniwas Goyal v National Internet Exchange of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (L) No. 3000 of 2017], directing National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) not to take further action/steps in pursuance to the impugned order of termination, henceforth NIXI shall not be able to process any transfer request of your .IN domain name presently under “NIXI Holding Account” , till further directions from the Hon’ble Court.

Hello chandubaba,

Welcome to NamePros.

Thank you for the info.
Can anyone give a Readers Digest (condensed) version on what the end result of (all) these changes will have on dot IN domaining?

Peace,
Kenny
 
0
•••
Hello chandubaba,

Welcome to NamePros.

Thank you for the info.
Can anyone give a Readers Digest (condensed) version on what the end result of (all) these changes will have on dot IN domaining?

Peace,
Kenny

There is no end result. @chandubaba simply stated that NIXI refused to transfer his domains out blaming it on the court decision.

NIXI is actually full of shit, because the court decision prohibits NIXI from terminating Mitsu.in's registrar accreditation but does not prohibit transferring domains out. In fact, NIXI is supposed to return all domains to Mitsu.in pending a further court decision, but of course they refuse to do so for their own corrupt reasons.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
There is no end result. @chandubaba simply stated that NIXI refused to transfer his domains out blaming it on the court decision.

NIXI is actually full of sh*t, because the court decision prohibits NIXI from terminating Mitsu.in's registrar accreditation but does not prohibit transferring domains out. In fact, NIXI is supposed to return all domains to Mitsu.in pending a further court decision, but of course they refuse to do so for their own corrupt reasons.
No. The court decision essentially states that the matter of Mitsu's accreditation must be resolved via arbitration. This decision was in response to the lawsuit filed by Mitsu's owners. There is no challenge to the domain names being held in the holding account operated by Nixi.

In fact, NIXI is supposed to return all domains to Mitsu.in pending a further court decision
Can you cite this decision or are you, in your own words, full of shit?

@Kenny To summarize this issue for you, Nixi (the .in registry) canceled the accreditation of 2 out of 5 (iirc) of Mitsu's registrars. The reason for the termination weren't explicitly stated but the validity of the same is is what is in question. Simultaneously with the termination, Nixi also moved all domains registered by the terminated registrars into a special holding account operated by Nixi. This also essentially blocked all registrants from being able to modify their domain settings and prevented renewals, transfers or deletions of the domains. The domains also will not expire while the issue runs its course.

Mitsu's owners sued Nixi in a court of law to halt this termination. On reviewing the lawsuit and filings by both the parties, the court vacated the lawsuit as per the operating agreement between Nixi and the registrars. The agreement contains a binding clause on arbitration to resolve all disputes between the registrar and the registry. This arbitration is, presumably, in progress. In the meantime, the domains are locked in the holding account.

I don't see where Nixi is in the wrong or where they were forced to return all domains to the registrar. I'm also not commenting on the validity of the termination as the reason for the same are unknown to the general public.

Disclaimer: This is my understanding of the case and ianal so some legal consideration might not be fully accurate. Please speak to a lawyer or if you have reach within Nixi, get first had information from them.
 
3
•••
No. The court decision essentially states that the matter of Mitsu's accreditation must be resolved via arbitration. This decision was in response to the lawsuit filed by Mitsu's owners. There is no challenge to the domain names being held in the holding account operated by Nixi.

Wow. How does that contradict anything I said? The termination of Mitsu.in's accreditation is stopped by the court, pending further action, and whether that action is arbitration or not is irrelevant to this discussion. NIXI's explanation to registrants is that NIXI is prevented by the court's decision from transferring domains out. That explanation is deceitful and wrong. The court's decision does not require NIXI to keep the domains that it has effectively seized in a holding account, nor does it prevent NIXI from returning the domains to Mitsu.in pending arbitration, so that registrants can do whatever they please to do with their domains while the parties resolve their issues through arbitration or other means.

Can you cite this decision or are you, in your own words, full of sh*t?

Unless you are privy to the original agreement between NIXI and MItsu.in, you have no idea what the parties are required or not required to do under the agreement. Go take your insults elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
 
0
•••
The termination of Mitsu.in's accreditation is stopped by the court, pending further action
No. The termination has not be suspended. The termination is essentialy in status quo until the matter is resolved one way or the other. This exactly means that Nixi is not required to return the domains back to Mitsu.
The court's decision does not require NIXI to keep the domains

The court order also does not require the opposite, i.e., returning the domain to Mitsu.

Unless you are privy to the original agreement between NIXI and MItsu.in, you have no idea what the parties are required or not required to do under the agreement. Go take your insults elsewhere.

Actually, this agreement is available to the public on Nixi's website. Please go and review the following sections in this doc - https://registry.in/system/files/IN_Registrar_Accreditation_Agreement_1.pdf

Sections 9.2 & 9.9

Section 9.9 clearly lays out both the jurisdiction and the mandatory arbitration for disputes.
Further, please review the court order here - http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=8295&yr=2018
(It appears the case was moved to the Delhi high court basis the jurisdiction of disputes as laid out in the agreement linked above. I don't have the time right now to locate that decision).
On a complete reading of the decision by Honbl Delhi High Court, there is no mention or requirement in the order of Nixi having to return the domains back to Mitsu. On the contrary ( and reading between the following lines):

The petitioner has also moved IA No.529/2018 wherein directions are sought till the pendency of the petition against the respondent ot to destroy, delete or tamper with all electronic logs of all the actions done concerning the subject matter of the petition on whose basis the misconduct of respondent as a accredited registrar of applicant was found and pursuant to the same the petitioner was constrained to terminate
his appointment as the accredit Registrar of applicant vide order dated 20.10.2017.

it appears that the Honbl. High court has no judgement or comment on the actual termination itself. Which means the termination is NOT on stay or canceled.

Also, it's funny that you can insult others (see quote below) and when your own words are quoted back at you, you feel insulted :D

NIXI is actually full of sh*t


So you see, I do my homework and don't talk out of thin air

Standard Disclaimer: IANAL so please consult a lawyer for legal advise or interpretation.
 
0
•••
Funny how people "get personal" use foul lingo, yet the moderator watches along in a "professional" forum...mud slinging is going to help no one or their cause.

If IN domain owners are "hurting" for having domains with an errant Registrar then they need to implead themselves into this process below and request relief -

https://www.namepros.com/threads/mitsu-accreditation-termination-arbitration-updates.1060837/

Else wait for law to take its due course...slow and painful as it maybe.

The root cause of the delay in my view since Dec the errant Registrar against whom a mountain of evidence of failure to meet contractual obligations exist per court records (secured from Bombay HC) has done nothing to participate yet in the arbitration proceedings..based on public info, instead he spreads rumours via his gremlins in forums :ROFL:
 
0
•••
it's funny that you can insult others (see quote below) and when your own words are quoted back at you, you feel insulted :D

My statement was not an insult. It was my opinion of NIXI and the way they are handling the matter. You are entitled to your opinion, but to me it is absolutely clear that NIXI is not acting in good faith, based on my company's communications with them and on the fact that they refuse to allow registrants to conduct regular business on the domains (which includes renewals and transfers).

Your statement, however was an insult directed at me, so there's the difference. Unless, of course, you work for NIXI or were sent here by them to defend their case.

And once again, there is nothing in the court's decision that is precluding NIXI from allowing registrants to transfer domains out to a third-party, yet they are hiding behind that decision as the reason for the domains being kept hostage.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
@anantj and @crunchy,

Thank you both for your answers, however, if there is going to be unconstructive / antagonistic conversation between the two of you we ask that you take it to DM so as not to deplete the flow of the thread with deletions.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Peace,
Kenny
 
0
•••
Yes, NIXI has locked the domains, without a valid reason and registrants cannot transfer the domain out
 
0
•••
All this legal banter aside, what I would like to know is if I continue to renew my domains with Mitsu do the renewals stick? Are the renewal dates updating in the Who's WWho?
 
0
•••
@rodash No, Mitsu has no control over the domains, which means you can't renew them. The domains are in NIXI's holding account.
 
1
•••
Domain investors should contact NIXI on phone and ask them to resolve the matter at the earliest, they should also visit the local NIC office
 
0
•••
@rodash No, Mitsu has no control over the domains, which means you can't renew them. The domains are in NIXI's holding account.

I've looked further into this, given that I recently paid renewal fees on a stack of domains. The .IN Registry (NIXI) Whois is showing December 2018 expiry dates for ALL domains I renewed, and it is also showing Business Solutions (R54-AFIN) - alias Mitsu Inc - as the sponsoring registrar, which would suggest to me that NIXI is allowing Mitsu.in to accept renewals and that these renewals are being accepted into the .IN Registry system.

Are other Mitsu.in domain name holders renewing their domains?
 
0
•••
0
•••
I've looked further into this, given that I recently paid renewal fees on a stack of domains. The .IN Registry (NIXI) Whois is showing December 2018 expiry dates for ALL domains I renewed, and it is also showing Business Solutions (R54-AFIN) - alias Mitsu Inc - as the sponsoring registrar, which would suggest to me that NIXI is allowing Mitsu.in to accept renewals and that these renewals are being accepted into the .IN Registry system.

Are other Mitsu.in domain name holders renewing their domains?
Mitsu has 4 (or maybe 5) registrar accreditations. Not all accreditations have been suspended. So domains registered with the registrars who are still accredited don't have any issues when managing them
 
1
•••
Just a matter of time IMHO before all related Registrar accounts are terminated, given it's a one person operation i.e. the same errant individual, among other reasons.
 
0
•••
I've looked further into this, given that I recently paid renewal fees on a stack of domains. The .IN Registry (NIXI) Whois is showing December 2018 expiry dates for ALL domains I renewed, and it is also showing Business Solutions (R54-AFIN) - alias Mitsu Inc - as the sponsoring registrar, which would suggest to me that NIXI is allowing Mitsu.in to accept renewals and that these renewals are being accepted into the .IN Registry system.

Are other Mitsu.in domain name holders renewing their domains?
Are all these in the same mitsu account. How did you make the payment, using credit card or other options
 
0
•••
0
•••
Are all these in the same mitsu account. How did you make the payment, using credit card or other options
All domains in the same account. Paid by credit card.
 
0
•••

Yes, point taken, but I will ask the question again, why are the renewals showing in the .IN REgistry if Mitsu isn't allowed to accept renewals? The registry is obviously updating its database and Whois facility to reflect renewals orchestrated by Mitsu.

This whole thing is a mess. My concern is that can you afford not to renew the domains, given that once a domain lapses it is no longer in your possession. It's all very well for NIXI to say don't renew them, but given the chaos and uncertainty it allows to go on how can you trust them to safeguard your domain? Given the lax rules and practices, what's to say that 6 months down the track they won't say, "Sorry, your domain has lapsed and is now back in the registry for resale?

Another point, NIXI says to domain owners not to renew with Mitsu, but given that it knows Mitsu is actively soliciting renewals why doesn't it take direct action against MITSU and its owners? If Mitsu is truly deregistered, then isn't it an act of fraud to solicit and accept renewals? You can't tell me that the domain regulatory authority in India can't get an order through the court to stop a company doing something it's not authorised to do. I think there is more to this than meets the eye. In the meantime, my domains are all up to date in the .IN Registry, and to me that is the most important thing.
 
0
•••
Yes, point taken, but I will ask the question again, why are the renewals showing in the .IN REgistry if Mitsu isn't allowed to accept renewals? The registry is obviously updating its database and Whois facility to reflect renewals orchestrated by Mitsu.
Mitsu (In the sense of the umbrella name used) actually has 4-5 registrars. Let us, for discussions sake, name them as reg1, reg2, reg3, reg4, reg5. All these registrars are owned by Mitsu. They also allow you to manage domains either any (and all) of these 5 registrars through the same Mitsu account.

Now, the NIXI accreditation of reg1 and reg2 has been terminated. Reg3-reg5 are still accreditated. Depending on which of the registrars your domain is registered with, you may be able to renew some of the domains and not be able to renew others. The simplest and easiest way to determine this would be to look at live whois of the domain to figure out where the domain is currently located. If it says Nixi holding account, then they were registered with the now terminated registrars. If they say Mitsu (or a variant of that), then they are registered with reg3-5 and can be managed as usal.

Hopefully this longish post clarifies the matter. Spending too much time on explaining the same scenario/situation again and again. Please do your due diligence and do not construe the above as legal or business advice
 
0
•••
Back