Dynadot.com problem

[Robert140]

Has anyone used lawyers to recover domains? I have a problem with Dynadot.com, which used trickery to lock my account, and the domains I registered (which were free for registrations) ) have been down for over a month, right from the moment of registration and payment, for over a month.

 

[Robert140]

Here is their response after a month of the domain not functioning, it never did.
"We're so sorry for the unpleasant experience. According to the team, they have to refile the documents and it will take some time more. We've been actively following up on this."

 

[DomainArmer]

@Dynadot is one of the most honest registrar I do business with for the last 15+ years.
I'm sure they will find a solution for your problem.

 

[Robert140]

Believe me, not launching a new domain for a month after registration doesn't indicate high quality. Neither does the response delivered during that time by poor-quality AI, saying, "We're working, you wait."

 

[DomainArmer]

Believe me, not launching a new domain for a month after registration doesn't indicate high quality. Neither does the response delivered during that time by poor-quality AI, saying, "We're working, you wait."

I understand where you are coming from and I will upset too, but dynadot will always find a solution if they can and asap.
Try to tag them here and talk to them, they will help for sure.

 

[Robert140]

I understand where you are coming from and I will upset too, but dynadot will always find a solution if they can and asap.
Try to tag them here and talk to them, they will help for sure.

OK, I get it. A month is too short for Dynadot to launch domains.
The fact that they write once that the account is not blocked and the second time that I have to unblock it is also not their problem, but mine.
I'll go further. To unblock my account, I recorded that weird video of my face and ID, and still nothing. Maybe they were a legitimate company once. Now, judging by their responses (most likely implemented by artificial intelligence), I just want to get a few domains back and get out of there.

 

[jberryhill]

Has anyone used lawyers to recover domains?

Yes, certainly, all of the time. How much would you be willing to spend to do that?

the domains I registered (which were free for registrations) ) have been down for over a month, right from the moment of registration and payment

What I like about these kinds of threads is that it is always a mystery what the other side's rationale is. The OP refers to "trickery" which sounds pretty interesting. For someone at Dynadot to go out of their way to employ some kind of deception to make off with the insanely low margin they make on a couple of domain registrations doesn't sound very cost efficient.

I'm guessing the "free for registrations" thing refers to the domains having been available for registration, and not a price, but maybe we'll find out.

It is really helpful in these kinds of things, in addition to saying what it is you want, to give your best guess of an answer to a question like "If someone asked Dynadot why these names are not activated, what do you think Dynadot would say?"

It kind of sounds like there was an identity verification issue. Dynadot is not allowed to activate a domain name unless they get some level of verification, usually via email loop, but sometimes involving SMS or other methods, of the contact information of the person registering a domain name. Is that where things went sideways here, or is it something else?

It can also be helpful to provide some information that might be enlightening as to why Dynadot's system may have subjected your transactions to higher scrutiny. Things like, where are you located, what sort of access are you using (VPN, IP address from where), and how that matches up with your payment and registration data. Is there some reason why your transaction may have looked suspicious?

Getting those kinds of facts out of the way up front can go a long way toward understanding the problem you are having. And, if you do hire a lawyer, you're going to have to present your problem in an understandable way or the time and cost will be greater.

 

[Robert140]

Yes, "free for registrations" thing refers to the domains having been available for registration.

By "tricks," I mean that the account and all domains were blocked when I tried to obtain the authinfo codes. Dynadot replied that I had entered the wrong PIN code for my account. I replied that this was false, but they replied that their systems had verified it, and that was it. The question is why their systems had previously sent me an email stating that "I checked your account and there is no block. What are you referring to? Please clarify, and we can check!"

I paid as usual, using a Santander card, now with an Erste Bank card. I haven't changed my email address or used a VPN. The IP address is from a mobile network operator in Poland, Germany, etc. (T-Mobile).
There's no reason for the transaction to be suspicious, especially since these domains are marked as "For Sale Landing Page" in my account interface, so Dynadot doesn't consider them fraudulent.

I've now filed a complaint with ICANN and AFNIC.fr; we'll see what happens.

 

[Robert140]

I received a response from AFNIC.fr, very quickly
When submitting a question to AFNIC.fr, I provided my registered Dynadot.com account information, including my first name, last name, address and e-mail. Here's the response:


Thank you for your email.

The domain names casieracolis.fr and casiercolis.fr are under verification procedure. According to our database, you are not an official registrant of these domain name.

The Registrant (the one in Whois) and the registrar (Dynadot) were informed about the verification procedure that started on 8 June. The domain names casieracolis.fr and casiercolis.fr have been blocked since 15/06. As we have not received the requested documents, the holder's portfolio has been blocked for a maximum period of thirty (30) calendar days.

During this period, we kindly ask the registrant and the registrar to provide any supporting documents that would allow us to conclude that the holder complies with the eligibility and reachability requirements. The documents must be submitted by the official registrant of the domain name (the one published in the WHOIS database – DEUP Service Inc.).

Please contact Dynadot as soon as possible. Otherwise, if the holder/Registrant is unable to provide the requested documents within the maximum period of thirty (30) calendar days (starting from 15/06), the entire domain name portfolio, as well as any newly registered domain names, will be deleted. Once deleted, the domain names will become available for registration by third parties on a first-come, first-served basis.

To avoid missing future communications, I recommend changing the registrant information to your own name. Please note that when the registrant is a private individual, their contact details are hidden in the WHOIS database and are not publicly visible (except for the technical contact).

If your requests remain unanswered, please send us a copy of all your correspondence with your registrar so that we can intervene. AFNIC will then contact your registrar and handle your request with them.

I remain at your disposal if you have any questions.

 

[Jannes]

There's an account lock at Dynadot and it applies to everyone (you need to know your PIN code to unlock). The fact that the .fr registry has blocked your .fr domains seems to be a completely different issue. You're not the only person who is having problems with .fr domains,

https://www.namepros.com/threads/fi...y-code-top-level-domain.1358508/#post-9607834
(ignore the .fi extension here)

@Name2go

 

[jberryhill]

I received a response from AFNIC.fr, very quickly

That's good. I don't understand the point about complaining to ICANN. ICANN has nothing to do with how Dynadot manages .fr domains.

According to our database, you are not an official registrant of these domain name.

What do you suppose they mean by that? I don't follow every ccTLD rule, but did you elect Dynadot's privacy service?

The Registrant (the one in Whois)

Do you know what they mean by that?

Who is this:

contact: DEUP Service Inc.
address: DEUP Service Inc.
address: Palangos g. 4-327 # 7
address: 01402 Vilnius
address: Vilnius County
country: LT

I did a search of the Lithuania corporate register. Maybe I'm using it wrong, but I didn't find any such company...

Palangos 4-327 is a pretty big building with quite a few businesses and mailboxes...

But, the upshot appears to be that, as far as AFNIC is concerned, the registrant reported to them is DEUP Privacy Service (deuprivacy.com) and not you. If you are using them as a proxy, you have no standing in this matter.

And... this is one of my pet peeves about proxy services or people who use fictitious registrant data in order to protect their privacy. Yes, you will protect your privacy. But if something goes wrong, all of the effort you put into disassociating your personal identity from the domain name can render it impossible to solve the problem because, as the privacy user intended, their identity is indeed disassociated from the domain name.

The bottom line here is that you do not appear to be the registrant of the domain names, as far as the registry is concerned. The registry is going to want DEUP Privacy Service to confirm their identity. You confirming your identity to Dynadot is irrelevant.

You are not the registrant of the domain names. So, it would appear that the actual registrant needs to confirm its identity to the registry. You don't have anything to do with it.

The only thing you did was to pay Dynadot to register two domain names to someone else. That was generous of you. It looks like they did that successfully. If the registrant wants to use the domain names, the registrant will have to verify their identity.

 

[Future Sensors]

Tagging @wongtaichiew to add his view on recovering domains as well.

 

[Future Sensors]

But, the upshot appears to be that, as far as AFNIC is concerned, the registrant reported to them is DEUP Privacy Service (deuprivacy.com) and not you. If you are using them as a proxy, you have no standing in this matter.

FWIW, that particular privacy service didn't respond in the case mentioned below.

https://www.syreli.fr/decisions/telecharger/66953

Summary of the AFNIC SYRELI Decision – ******france.fr (FR‑2025‑04475)

1. Parties

Requester: COLAS

Domain Holder: DEUP Service

2. Domain Name

******france.fr

Registered: 15 July 2025

Registrar: Dynadot Inc

Expires: 15 July 2026

3. Procedure

COLAS filed a SYRELI complaint on 30 July 2025.

AFNIC verified the request and froze the domain.

The holder did not respond.

The SYRELI panel met on 16 September 2025.

 

[Future Sensors]

Which, in an unfortunate way, ends up reminding me of Rob Monster's privacy‑service conduct.

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2021/d2021-1050.html

7. Initial Comments on the Registrar’s Role in This Case

This is an unusual case in that the Respondent is the CEO of the Registrar and also is described as the “governor” and “head” of the Registrar’s subsidiary, Anonymize, which was used for a privacy shield. These relationships create an inherent conflict of interest since the Panel relies on the Registrar to provide accurate information in response to the verification request, but the Respondent, who also is the CEO of the Registrar, would have an interest in hiding accurate information about the ownership of the disputed domain name (not to mention other domain names it may acquire) in order to strengthen the Respondent’s arguments with respect to its purported legitimate interest and potential bad faith.

Those prospects of a conflict of interest are problematic in this case. The Registrar, in its verification, inaccurately claimed that Mr. Monster was the owner of the disputed domain name and had been the owner since 2000, long before the Complainant adopted its trademark. In its initial Response, the Respondent provided other information – that the owner of the disputed domain name was Anonymize (not Mr. Monster) and that Anonymize had owned the disputed domain name continuously since September 2020, before Mr. Lindell’s plan in March 2021 to use the disputed domain name for a competing social media service, but significantly after the initial creation date by some two decades. Either way, these inaccurate disclosures were to the Respondent’s benefit. If the Respondent had actually registered the disputed domain name in the year 2000 prior to the Complainant’s trademark rights (registered in 2018 and claiming first use in 2016), the Panel would have found an absence of bad faith registration. See, e.g., WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.8. Similarly, if the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name prior to the announcement of Mr. Lindell’s venture, and had never transferred the disputed domain name to Mr. Lindell, then the Panel likely would find an absence of bad faith registration since the disputed domain name would have been registered without regard to Mr. Lindell’s arguably infringing plan. See generally id., sections 3.1 and 3.2.

The information provided both by the Registrar and in the Response was materially inaccurate, and it was only after the Panel issued procedural orders seeking clarification that the Respondent corrected the record and admitted that Mr. Monster personally was the registrant but that he only acquired the disputed domain name in March 2021, after the Complainant acquired its trademark and after Mr. Lindell announced and then abandoned his plans. Even still, there remain unexplained inconsistencies in the documentary material submitted by the Respondent: the emails between the Registrar and Mr. Carter indicate that the seller of the disputed domain name on March 9, 2021 was Mr. Monster (not Mr. Vinkhona) and that there was no broker involved, but the internal escrow documentation the Respondent submitted states that Mr. Monster was the broker for Mr. Vinkhona.

This misconduct by the Respondent and by the Registrar is troubling. It is all the more troubling because it appears to have been designed to improve the Respondent’s prospects for success in this proceeding. It raises significant questions as to the propriety of a Registrar being allowed to buy and sell domain names for its own account (or the propriety of a Registrar’s subsidiaries, officers or employees to engage in domain name speculation). This is an issue that the Panel believes should be addressed by ICANN, and the Panel requests that the Center share this decision with ICANN so that ICANN may consider whether to impose restrictions on such behavior by registrars. See, e.g., Registrar Accreditation Agreement, sections 3.7.9 (“Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars”) and section 1.3.2 (noting that ICANN may establish specifications and policies on “prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars”).

The inaccurate disclosures in this case also call into question the certification in the Response, signed by the Respondent’s counsel, Daniel R. Price, “that the information contained in this Response is to the best of the Respondent’s knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under the Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.” The documentation that the Respondent eventually submitted with its second and third supplemental submissions directly contradicts the representations in the initial Response, which at minimum makes the Panel question Mr. Price’s due diligence in signing the certification.

The Complainant is not wrong to highlight these serious issues. They are not violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure since, as the Complainant acknowledged, those rules apply in United States federal courts, not in a UDRP proceeding. But they do call into question the Respondent’s credibility. That said, the documentation attached to Mr. Monster’s declaration does appear to substantiate his explanation of the facts of this case.

If this proceeding were being held before a United States court, the court would have the inherent power, as a sanction, to rule for the Complainant in light of the Respondent’s serial misrepresentations. The Policy, however, does not give that power to a panel. Rather, the Panel only can rule for the Complainant if the Complainant satisfies the three elements of the Policy. The Panel turns to that analysis in the following three sections.

 

[jberryhill]

Which, in an unfortunate way, ends up reminding me of Rob Monster's privacy‑service conduct.

He was totally off the rails. When a customer got a UDRP, Rob would get in touch with them and offer to settle it for them. One of his victims got in touch with me. He had told Rob he just wanted to transfer the domain name for nothing and terminate the proceeding. The UDRP provides a mechanism for doing that, but you have to do it correctly. Totally unknown to his customer/victim, Rob turned around and tried to squeeze a few bucks out of the complainant, which the complainant of course refused.

Totally bonkers stuff.

But, yeah, what seems to have happened here is that the privacy service didn't verify, and so Dynadot is asking the OP to verify his information because they don't understand what is going on. I don't know if that DEUP entity is a normal proxy for .fr registrations through Dynadot or not, but, to address the OP's question about legal mechanisms here, he's not the registrant of the domain names anyway.

I still want to know about the "trickery" mentioned in the OP.

 

[jberryhill]

Ah, here's the clue:

"We're so sorry for the unpleasant experience. According to the team, they have to refile the documents and it will take some time more. We've been actively following up on this."

By "they have to refile the documents", Dynadot might mean that the ball is in DEUP's court to file proof of their existence to AFNIC.

During this period, we kindly ask the registrant and the registrar to provide any supporting documents that would allow us to conclude that the holder complies with the eligibility and reachability requirements. The documents must be submitted by the official registrant of the domain name (the one published in the WHOIS database – DEUP Service Inc.).

As pointed out above, this privacy service doesn't reply to domain dispute notices either. That could be one reason for some extra scrutiny here.

But you aren't the registrant of the domain name, so you don't have any interests or rights here.

 

[Name2go]

There's an account lock at Dynadot and it applies to everyone (you need to know your PIN code to unlock). The fact that the .fr registry has blocked your .fr domains seems to be a completely different issue. You're not the only person who is having problems with .fr domains,

Thanks for alerting this issue.

I’ve been torn over whether to just let this matter drop, given that it’s an unfortunate isolated incident, or whether we might be able to contribute to cleaning up corrupt or overwhelmed systems.
To be honest, I am currently looking into what kind of support the EU Commission might be able to offer in my case.

I need to get my thoughts and the facts of the matter in order first, and then I’ll share the full story here.

I can say this much for now: Afnic imposes disproportionately high demands on domain owners—specifically, a requirement to prove the identity of the registrar’s privacy service. That is as stupid as it is absurd. Naturally, I am unable to do this, and I received absolutely zero support from the registrar, Dynadot—not even the usual spiel about engineers working on it or the issue being discussed with the team.

I have lost all my .fr domains. More on this soon.

 

[jberryhill]

Afnic imposes disproportionately high demands on domain owners—specifically, a requirement to prove the identity of the registrar’s privacy service.

I'll be interested to hear your story.

Afnic does not require you to prove the identity of the registrar's privacy service.

Afnic requires the registrant of a domain name to prove its identity.

So, you have two choices here. Either you register a domain name and prove your identity, or you delegate registration of a domain name to someone else, and it is up to that someone else to prove their identity. But that choice is yours to make, and you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of your own choices.

Now, here's what I don't understand....

https://www.afnic.fr/wp-media/uploads/2020/12/Guidepratique_Titulaire_VA.pdf

Right associated with your domain name

• Anonymity of your personal data

As an individual, the personal data (name, address, phone no., etc.) you provide or
have provided to your registrar when registering your domain name are recorded in
the Afnic database (called the "Whois" database) but are in no case published2.
Your personal data and the Nic Handle are, by default, replaced by "Restricted
publication" in the Whois database.

In cases where the Nic Handle is also referred for an administrative contact (see
page 8: designate a technical contact) anonymity will also apply to the contact.

This right only applies if you are an individual.

If you are an individual domain registrant, AFNIC does not publish your contact information in the whois information.

So, what is the point of using a privacy service with a .fr domain name?

Make this make sense to me.

If I want to buy alcohol, I have to prove my age. If I pay someone else to go buy alcohol for me, they are going to have prove their age. But, in that second scenario, nobody is asking me to prove the age of the person I hired to buy alcohol. The rule simply applies to whomever is buying it.

 

[Jannes]

In effect, the .fr registry doesn’t allow registrar’s privacy service. Whois privacy is handled at the registry. Individuals get privacy (automatically) and organizations do not. It’s the same with the .fi registry Traficom, btw.

Maybe I’m missing some nuances here, but I don’t understand why Dynadot is so ignorant about the matter.
@Dynadot @Caleb Tweed

 

[Name2go]

Afnic does not require you to prove the identity of the registrar's privacy service.

Afnic requires the registrant of a domain name to prove its identity.

I have always admired skilled lawyers for their special gift of logical thinking and excellent command of language—especially when I find myself relying on Google Translate, unsure if the result truly captures what I intended to convey.

Yet there is one aspect of the legal world that is infuriating: the tendency toward abstraction. When applied to excess, this abstraction distorts—or even renders impossible—the very reality of life it is meant to govern and regulate.

I register a .fr domain. It is available; it infringes on no trademarks and violates no standards of public decency. I add it to my cart and proceed to checkout. I pay and receive confirmation that I am the domain's holder. Whois privacy is included by default, yet I was never informed who provides this service—let alone given the option to choose a specific provider.

So, I’ve paid, I "own" the domain, and I’m doing nothing wrong with it, as long as we don´t talk about the standards of the .in Registry. And then, along comes legal pathology to tell me that I am not the registrant—the privacy provider is?

As I said, there are brilliant thinkers for whom navigating a third, fourth, or fifth twist presents no difficulty. For my part, it suffices here to think just one step ahead.
The law is meant to make life easier and serve the community. If, in the realm of domaining, it demands privacy standards on the one hand while calling domain ownership into question due to those very privacy measures on the other, then we might as well put the domain industry on display in the showcase of failed business models.