Perplexing Whois Expiration Date - Status Puzzle

[Grrilla]

One of those odd-ball situations that I, for one, don't remember running across before.

I've been tracking a domain that shows that it expired over a year ago and, yet, it still has not dropped. The only peculiarity that I can see, that may provide a clue is that it is a .US domain attached to a company w/ a foreign (non US) address. Any ideas why the domain would not have dropped?

Here is the pertinent whois info:

Last Transferred Date: Mon May 16 20:58:03 GMT 2005
Domain Registration Date: Wed Apr 24 21:45:20 GMT 2002
Domain Expiration Date: Sat Apr 23 23:59:59 GMT 2005
Domain Last Updated Date: Tue May 17 17:02:11 GMT 2005

Domain Status: serverDeleteProhibited
Domain Status: serverHold
Domain Status: serverRenewProhibited
Domain Status: serverTransferProhibited
Domain Status: serverUpdateProhibited

PS I notice that it was transferred may 16 2005- theoretically, that would move the drop date to May 16 06 and it , still, may be dropping. However, it seems like 15mos would have been ample time for the whois to have been updated.

 

[Dave_Z]

2 potential reasons:

1. The registrar's systems is goofy.

Or

2. There's a legal issue on the domain name.

Unfortunately only the registrar knows. And they're not obligated to give third
parties any info whatsoever.

Here's a thought: let's ask Neustar what those status lines mean. I too have
never seen them before.

 

[Grrilla]

2 potential reasons:

1. The registrar's systems is goofy.

Or

2. There's a legal issue on the domain name.

Unfortunately only the registrar knows. And they're not obligated to give third
parties any info whatsoever.

Here's a thought: let's ask Neustar what those status lines mean. I too have
never seen them before.

I, just, had this feeling that I might be hearing from Dave Zan on this, particular, matter.
1) Upon looking at the whois in further detail, I realized that the servers are Neustars own. INVALIDNS1.NEUSTAR.COM I should've looked closer but was thrown because all of the contact info is, still, the original registrants.
2) I started a thread w/ at the Neustar policy-forum. [email protected]
3) The name has the "F" word in it. After running a search on a dozen, similar, names I found that Neustar took several "F" and other nasty words out of circulations on or about Apr23/24, 2005.
4) I followed up by inquiring about what guidelines were being used to determine what constituted objectionable content. The domain in question was dontf~uckwith.Us, which I don't find, particularly, objectionable unless the person using it is spraying it, directly, in my face.
5) Have not received a reply on the criteria Neustar is using to determine objectionable. I have found several names that are much more objectionable than this one is, (to me) one that are active.
ie gangbang.us is one that is OK to post, here.

Neustar's response:

The domain statuses you reference below are standard EPP statuses. The
IETF document that describes the various domain statuses in detail can
be found at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3731.txt. The following is a
brief description of each status:

serverDeleteProhibited - prevents the domain name from being deleted

serverHold - prevents the domain name from resolving (removes the domain
from the zone file)

serverRenewProhibited - prevents the domain name from being renewed
(note: under normal circumstances, a domain name will be auto-renewed
per the registry's policies, even if this status is assigned)

serverTransferProhibited - prevents the domain name from being
transferred

serverUpdateProhibited - prevents the domain name from being updated

Each of these has a corresponding status that is prefaced with "client"
as opposed to "server". A status prefaced by "server" indicates that
the status was assigned by the Registry, while a status prefaced by
"client" indicates that the status was assigned by the "registrar."

I did not see the domain name so I can't comment specifically on the
issue raised about the domain having expired, but not dropped. However,
we do maintain a number of domains that were found to be in violation of
certain registry policies, and these domains are typically kept in a
separate account and not released back into the pool of available names.
If you would like to provide the domain name, I would be happy to
investigate and provide a more detailed explanation.

I sent the Neustar rep the domain name and will post back w/ results.

 

[Damion]

...theoretically, that would move the drop date to May 16 06 and it , still, may be dropping. However, it seems like 15mos would have been ample time for the whois to have been updated.

Was the total time for a domain to drop not around 80 days?
https://www.snapnames.com/deleteprocess.html

 

[Grrilla]

Was the total time for a domain to drop not around 80 days?
https://www.snapnames.com/deleteprocess.html

Right. That's what I meant by theorectically it could still be going to drop. I've seen domains take 120++ days to drop. I think that some domains at some, particular, registrar's take so long to drop that they are outside of the ozone somewhere defying Newton's Law of gravity. :hehe:

However, as you can see from the above post, the "mystery" was, really, the result of Neustar pulling the domains from circulation because of it's "F" word content and not because some registrar was trying to defy one of Einstein's space-time theories by requiring 15mos to update the whois.

 

[Dave_Z]

I, just, had this feeling that I might be hearing from Dave Zan on this, particular, matter.

Follow your "instincts", Michael. I'm 100% positive they'll serve you well. :D

After reading what you posted, it's just as I thought: the domain name's zone
files are taken off. More often than not, that happens due to a legal issue like
UDRP, service agreement violation, etc.

My guess is the registrant didn't exactly follow Neustar's policies, especially if
s/he/they didn't verify having a bonafide US presence. Neustar's consistent
with sending letters about this.

Oh, and thanks for posting that rfc link. I should've realized those status lines
are just Neustar's way of saying the domain name's on registrar-hold.

IIRC, someone posted about the .vn Registry withholding domain registrations
of names with "questionable" meanings. Then again, this also happened to the
original gTLDs long ago.

 

[Grrilla]

For those of you who who are interested in the points raised and who are inclined to read email threads in they're entirety, I present you with, "The Thread.", (in reverse order and minus a side-conversation that wasnt pertinent to issues raised in my email.)

Thank you for your response, Eric.. I am aware of the "client" modifiers, just, hadn't run across the "server" one's before.

The domain in question is, dont****with.us. Before you go jumping to any conclusions, I do *not* intend to register this domain, if and/or when it does drop. I ran across the status designations and brought the matter up at a domain name forum and some of our more experienced members hadn't run across this, particular, designation, either. So I thought it best to contact the source to get a definitive answer. Here is the whois:

Whois Output Obtained From: whois.nic.us
Domain Name: DONT****WITH.US
Domain ID: D1933077-US
Sponsoring Registrar: REGISTRY REGISTRAR
Domain Status: serverDeleteProhibited
Domain Status: serverHold
Domain Status: serverRenewProhibited
Domain Status: serverTransferProhibited
Domain Status: serverUpdateProhibited
Registrant ID: 0951171452932623
Registrant Name: Mr Anthony Jones
Registrant Organization: UK Rap Records
Registrant Address1: UK Rap Records, PO Box 218
Registrant City: Totton
Registrant State/Province: Hampshire
Registrant Postal Code: SO50 7EN
Registrant Country: Great Britain (UK)
Registrant Country Code: GB
Registrant Phone Number: +44.7984336458
Registrant Email: [email protected]
Registrant Application Purpose: P1
Registrant Nexus Category: C31/UK
Administrative Contact ID: 0951171452932623
Administrative Contact Name: Mr Anthony Jones
Administrative Contact Organization: UK Rap Records
Administrative Contact Address1: UK Rap Records, PO Box 218
Administrative Contact City: Totton
Administrative Contact State/Province: Hampshire
Administrative Contact Postal Code: SO50 7EN
Administrative Contact Country: Great Britain (UK)
Administrative Contact Country Code: GB
Administrative Contact Phone Number: +44.7984336458
Administrative Contact Email: [email protected]
Administrative Contact Application Purpose: P1
Administrative Contact Nexus Category: C31/UK
Billing Contact ID: 0951171452932623
Billing Contact Name: Mr Anthony Jones
Billing Contact Organization: UK Rap Records
Billing Contact Address1: UK Rap Records, PO Box 218
Billing Contact City: Totton
Billing Contact State/Province: Hampshire
Billing Contact Postal Code: SO50 7EN
Billing Contact Country: Great Britain (UK)
Billing Contact Country Code: GB
Billing Contact Phone Number: +44.7984336458
Billing Contact Email: [email protected]
Billing Contact Application Purpose: P1
Billing Contact Nexus Category: C31/UK
Technical Contact ID: 0951171452932623
Technical Contact Name: Mr Anthony Jones
Technical Contact Organization: UK Rap Records
Technical Contact Address1: UK Rap Records, PO Box 218
Technical Contact City: Totton
Technical Contact State/Province: Hampshire
Technical Contact Postal Code: SO50 7EN
Technical Contact Country: Great Britain (UK)
Technical Contact Country Code: GB
Technical Contact Phone Number: +44.7984336458
Technical Contact Email: [email protected]
Technical Contact Application Purpose: P1
Technical Contact Nexus Category: C31/UK
Name Server: INVALIDNS1.NEUSTAR.COM
Name Server: INVALIDNS2.NEUSTAR.COM
Created by Registrar: EASYSPACE LTD.
Last Updated by Registrar: NEULEVELCSR
Last Transferred Date: Mon May 16 20:58:03 GMT 2005
Domain Registration Date: Wed Apr 24 21:45:20 GMT 2002
Domain Expiration Date: Sat Apr 23 23:59:59 GMT 2005
Domain Last Updated Date: Tue May 17 17:02:11 GMT 2005

Now that I have examined the whois more carefully, I am seeing some info that passed me by @ 1st glance. ie the INVALIDNS1.NEUSTAR.COM DNS. This led me to a search of a number of other, similar, names and, I can see that there was a crackdown, of sorts, between Apr 23/24 and early May of 2005, that, notably, effected t.us domains w/ the "f" word. Were they active sites at the time?
Are there specific guidelines for what you are defining as objectionable uses or does Neustar take more of a Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it" approach? As I'm sure you are aware, you start to run into some murky waters when you get into the censorship arena- at least, the Supreme Court has found this to be the case. They have been grappling w/ what is and what isn't obscene for the past 50 years and still haven't settled on a satisfactory definition. "Don't **** with us!" is, hardly, what what many would consider to be an obscene phrase, at least not, relative to "cum on us", "gangbang us" or kill for us", for instance.

With your permission, I plan on quoting your response, (and links relating to the issue) in our forum. (Namepros.com) [ed. note) -> May've shot the gun a wee bit early with that part.

Thank you.
Michael Messenheimer

---------- Original Message -----------
Date: Thu 10 August 2006 10:59
Sender: "Brown, Eric" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Policy-forum] status lines question

listinfo/policy-forum

The domain statuses you reference below are

standard

EPP statuses. The IETF document that describes the various domain

statuses

in detail can be found at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3731.txt. The
following is a brief description of each status:

serverDeleteProhibited - prevents the domain name from being deleted

serverHold - prevents the domain name from resolving (removes the
domain from the zone file)

serverRenewProhibited - prevents the domain name from being renewed
(note: under normal circumstances, a domain name will be auto-renewed
per the registry's policies, even if this status is assigned)

serverTransferProhibited - prevents the domain name from being
transferred

serverUpdateProhibited - prevents the domain name from being updated

Each of these has a corresponding status that is prefaced with "client"
as opposed to "server". A status prefaced by "server" indicates that
the status was assigned by the Registry, while a status prefaced by
"client" indicates that the status was assigned by the "registrar."

I did not see the domain name so I can't comment specifically on the
issue raised about the domain having expired, but not dropped.
However, we do maintain a number of domains that were found to be in
violation of certain registry policies, and these domains are typically
kept in a separate account and not released back into the pool of
available names. If you would like to provide the domain name, I would
be happy to investigate and provide a more detailed explanation.

[Name withheld pending further devs.]
NeuStar
Product Manager, Registry Services

]-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Domains
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Policy-forum] status lines question

listinfo/policy-forumOne of those odd-ball situations that I, for one,
don't remember
running across before.

I've been tracking a domain that shows that it expired over a year ago
and, yet, it still has not dropped. The only peculiarity that I can
see, that may provide a clue is that it is a .US domain attached to a
company w/ a foreign (non US) address. Any ideas why the domain would
not have dropped?

Here is the pertinent whois info:

Quote:
Last Transferred Date: Mon May 16 20:58:03 GMT 2005
Domain Registration Date: Wed Apr 24 21:45:20 GMT 2002
Domain Expiration Date: Sat Apr 23 23:59:59 GMT 2005
Domain Last Updated Date: Tue May 17 17:02:11 GMT 2005

Domain Status: serverDeleteProhibited
Domain Status: serverHold
Domain Status: serverRenewProhibited
Domain Status: serverTransferProhibited
Domain Status: serverUpdateProhibited

Question: What do these domain status lines mean? I've never seen them
before.
PS I notice that it was transferred May 16 2005- theoretically, that
would move the drop date to May 16 06 and it , still, may be dropping.
However, it seems like 15mos would have been ample time for the whois
to have been updated.

 

[Dave_Z]

A .US registered to a seemingly UK-based individual? Not meeting .US nexus
requirements, all right.

On the side, I remember at least one expired name NSI locked up due to legal
dispute. Eventually it got resolved, they unlocked the name, and the name is
transferred to its new registrant.

 

[Damion]

Thanks Grrilla for posting this. Interesting info.

 

[Grrilla]

Bottom line:
Michael,

The .US Registry maintains a policy that domains containing one of the “Seven Words” identified in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S. Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978) are subject to deletion or removal by the Registry Operator (see http://www.neustar.us/policies/docs/Policy_Statement_usTLD_Admin.pdf). The domain you reference below was found to be in violation of this policy, and as a result we removed the domain from the zone file, and placed it in registry maintained account, so as not be released for future registration. The Registry does not filter domains at the time of registration, rather we perform regular reviews of registered .US domains, and when a domain is found to be in violation we take steps to lock down the domain and remove it from the zone file. Periodically we move these domains into a special registry account to prevent future re-registrations of the domain.

I hope this provided some clarity on this particular issue.

Regards,

Eric Brown
NeuStar

 

[Dave_Z]

Oh well, they're the boss. For .US domain names, anyway.

 

[Jo]

Wooooo the 7 bad words you can't say on television!
George Carlin! Now, who can say them backwards?
:hehe: sorry couldn't resist!

And thanks for sharing Michael, it's been an interesting read.

 

[ForSaleSign]

I didn't even realise that some of my more "fruity" .US names had been wiped from existence, until i was doing an inventory.

At first i thought it was a mistake on my part, but then realised it is indeed a CENSORSHIP issue.

Of course, I wont be able to get a refund on these names (they were pulled from the Zone just weeks after registration), and the Registry have had their fee. :td:

Shudda read the small print !