cctld Nov 24 TBR

[Aveeno]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Today’s TBR cancelled. Some Registrars unable to participate.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]http://cira.ca/cira-cancels-tbr-session-november-24-2010/



[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Zoobar]

...

Who is the $^&%^^%& registrar getting special considerations?

 

[Namefox]

NO FRICKIN WAY! ...I actually do see some legal consequences here.

 

[theinvestor]

i can't say i am surprised

 

[thebutler]

Think of the biggest WTF yell/scream you could imagine. Ya that was me.

 

[urlurl]

i thought so...my guess...sibername and a few others were able to grab all the names and left the other registers screaming...so they canceled again, lol

at least they are not adding any more names

 

[whitebark]

From CIRA

This was not a result of any changes to the new .CA registry system nor the TBR system, which remains unchanged.

So if nothing changed and they couldn't participate - that's their own fault.

 

[thebutler]

I'll say this. The guy who runs Burmac is a great guy. And I'd guess he's not rolling in cash and resources. BUT he's been able to figure out the new system. So if he can why the heck can't these other dipsh*ts. Its the guys with multi accounts who are obviously having the problems. But that said Sibername seems to have figured out the system.

So who's dragging behind? I wonder if Sibername has one of those lists showing the TBR results from today? We could scan it and see who's messing everything up. If they have the list they should post it, immediately.

 

[flong101]

If I were to guess, I would say Pool had a technical issue today and CIRA decided to screw all the other registrars in return.

Here's why:

1) Back in January 2009, many registrars had an unusually great day when pool server crashed just before TBR. The numbers reported by sibername today are a mirror image of what happened on january 2009.
2) Pool is one of many companies owned by CIRA insiders.

Today, all registrars I spoke with, with the exception of Pool, have reported all operations to be normal TBR wise.

Baremetal, Sibername, Burmac, myid, Canspace, and everyone else had no issue. The only silent party here is Pool.

It seems that Pool, despite in unlimited resources, had a clueless programmer who failed to understand how to carry a TBR session. But under what stretch of imagination is this not the exclusive responsibility of Pool, and only pool? With CIRA system being fine and all other registrars succeeding in carrying a TBR session, if the person in charge of TBR at Pool decided to take a long lunch or skip the day for some booze, does that mean that CIRA cancels the TBR?

What kind of a perverse joke is this?

So the Burmac guy slaves to make a system that works with his extremely limited resources and now he must pay the price of Pool screwing up?

As Namefox said, there is the potential of some very serious legal ramifications here.

 

[Namefox]

I would certainly like to start an investigation. This on top of the election for directors seeming to be skewed. How would the Freedom of Information act work in this regard? How willing do you think CIRA would be to share inside info?

 

[silentg]

Just got the notice from Sibername about the cancellation.

 

[stewie]

What a friggin joke!!! so I guess the bids go up and up what a bunch of crap!!! they need to reset all the bids back to zero this is bullchit!!!

legal action is looking like the best route for a few issues... I really hate the fact that these guys are in charge...its gone too far.

JMO

 

[ianccc]

seen this 2002 letter

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg18028.html

This is simply POLITICAL

 

[Namefox]

Something really smells fishy here. How connected is Webnames with CIRA? How about Momentus? Seems to me like there is a conflict of interest going on here. Now, I am not one to support a conspiracy but it appears that "arms length" does not apply here. Yes, I understand that there was a lot of data to wrangle on this TBR but how does one registrar participate and others do not. Things are not fair across the board here. I am also speaking out loud when I wonder about "hands in the cookie jar", "personal favors" and "backroom deals". I apologize for my overuse of quotations but I just know there is something legally going wrong here. What one person might justify and what is legally correct just might intersect.

 

[thebutler]

I asked one of CIRA directors via email some questions. I should point out that the director was helpful with some other questions earlier regarding TBR problems.

In regard to the 24th TBR I've been told that the CIRA directors were made aware of the cancellation. Also the directors will "would get a further briefing at the coming board meeting next week".

If people on DNforum know any of the directors I'd suggest you email them and get them to get some comments on the record (recorded minutes at the meeting) regarding what happened this week and who decided to cast the "fairness" net out into the discussion of why this TBR was canned.

 

[Pool.com]

I have posted a comment in another thread and will summarize my comments here as well. I applaud CIRA for making a very difficult decision in light of the history of TBRs post EPP migration. "flong101" rightly pointed out an accurate piece of history back in 2009 when Pool made a technical error and as a result we were not successful in that particular drop. The fault was ours at the time, we took our lumps and learned our lessons.

In yesterdays TBR, if I read the CIRA announcement correctly, there were multiple registrars that were unable to process commands against the TBR. I have not seen the results list personally so I can't comment on who was successful and who was not. Participants should recall that CIRA first publishes an "unofficial results" list that is formalized later in the day. Pool typically only takes action on the awarding of names and/or scheduling of auctions once the list has been formally published.

The CIRA press release suggests "ambiguity" in their documentation related to how the TBR operates in the new EPP environment post migration. And in fairness, yesterday was actually the first production opportunity for all registrars to confirm their TBR command streams were consistent withthe new requirements. "Ambiguity" would also suggest thst some people will interpret the requirement correctly and others will not. In the interest of fairness to all, CIRA has decided to first provide clarity to their specification and then re-run the TBR.

As in January of 2009, if this were simply an error made by my technical and or development staff, Pool would again take it's lumps and learn its lessons.

 

[pandersen]

What a friggin joke!!! so I guess the bids go up and up what a bunch of crap!!! they need to reset all the bids back to zero this is bullchit!!!

JMO

EGATE will roll all existing requests again to next weeks session. However we will again offer to anyone who wishes to remove bids (as long as it is all of them) in the next day or so.

 

[flong101]

Interesting how Pool does not deny that it was them after all the cause of the cancellation.

Instead they elect to post this load of BS believing that we are all idiots.

So Momentous is located in Ottawa as is CIRA.

What happened in the wee hiours of the night? Pool showed up at CIRA offices to "oversee the integrity of the session"?

Or does pool have enough directors and staff at CIRA that they really don't need to show up as they are already there?

Do other registrars know that while they believe they have a relationship with CIRA, they in fact have a relationship controlled and managed by Pool?

Webnames does not do much in TBR so it is not a factor here. But Pool is the major player and Pool controls CIRA.

And this whole ambiguity issue is such an insulting term to every one out there. All registrars from Burmac to Sibername managed to figure out the TBR without issue. Only Pool found it ambiguous?

And then CIRA decides, to cancel?

So in the end, the only party that matters is Pool. And again all registrars do not have a relationship with a transparent entity that treats all fairly and at arm length. They really have a relationship with Pool.

The .ca domain namespace is a canadian asset. This is not a Pool asset. What transpired is nothing less than a travesty.

How do we get IndustryCanada involved?

I have posted a comment in another thread and will summarize my comments here as well. I applaud CIRA for making a very difficult decision in light of the history of TBRs post EPP migration. "flong101" rightly pointed out an accurate piece of history back in 2009 when Pool made a technical error and as a result we were not successful in that particular drop. The fault was ours at the time, we took our lumps and learned our lessons.

In yesterdays TBR, if I read the CIRA announcement correctly, there were multiple registrars that were unable to process commands against the TBR. I have not seen the results list personally so I can't comment on who was successful and who was not. Participants should recall that CIRA first publishes an "unofficial results" list that is formalized later in the day. Pool typically only takes action on the awarding of names and/or scheduling of auctions once the list has been formally published.

The CIRA press release suggests "ambiguity" in their documentation related to how the TBR operates in the new EPP environment post migration. And in fairness, yesterday was actually the first production opportunity for all registrars to confirm their TBR command streams were consistent withthe new requirements. "Ambiguity" would also suggest thst some people will interpret the requirement correctly and others will not. In the interest of fairness to all, CIRA has decided to first provide clarity to their specification and then re-run the TBR.

As in January of 2009, if this were simply an error made by my technical and or development staff, Pool would again take it's lumps and learn its lessons.

 

[CanSpace]

I have posted a comment in another thread and will summarize my comments here as well. I applaud CIRA for making a very difficult decision in light of the history of TBRs post EPP migration.

I don't think there's anyone deserving of applause here.

As I posted in the other thread:

I have no idea how to interpret that. The thing is, the TBR system is virtually unchanged from how it was before... I fail to see how a registrar could have messed this up. What "field" are they referring to? If this cancellation was a result of a registrar having done something wrong then it should never have been canceled in the first place. There is no excuse for that level of incompetence.

If the cancellation is a result of a mistake by CIRA - ie registrars who had their systems set up correctly but were unable to make any TBR registrations because of an error on CIRA's end - then yes it is fair that the session was canceled. However this demonstrates incompetence on the part of CIRA, and after being postponed for this long, there is no excuse for this level of incompetence either.

So yes, if this was CIRA's fault then fine I "accept" the cancellation... however I certainly do not applaud them for it. Quite the opposite - I condemn them for their incompetence.

 

[Zoobar]

And in fairness, yesterday was actually the first production opportunity for all registrars to confirm their TBR command streams were consistent withthe new requirements. .

TBR ran the previous week. This was not the first run.