Register.com B.S.

[DnPowerful]

Register.com is obviously hoarding virtualhost.com, but the idea that they won't even offer up a whois record is pretty outrageous.

Day after day, I get this b.s.:

"Note: The whois server responsible for virtualhost.com is not responding. We are unable to display registration information at this time. We apologize for this inconvenience."

If you can snag this name, please let me know. I will pay for it.

 

[mole]

The registrars that we grew up with are all becoming corrupt crooks doing anything to make money and are constantly eyeing good domains with the intent to hoard. Who gives a shit anymore about fair play. ICANN doesn't. You are on your own DN.

Bring on the WLS!

 

[uncle]

what use will the WLS be, if Register.com doesn't drop the domain and keeps on hiding the whois info???

how can WLS help you then?

you still can only buy your subscription for $50 and pray that the name drops someday

 

[mole]

With WLS, all the corrupt registrars will HAVE to release their hoarded domains, like it or not hahahhahahaaaaaaa

Right now, these registrars are spitting into the face of Verisign and refusing to release their hoarded names with ... who gives you the right to mess with my business.

Bring on the WLS!

 

[beatz]

"With WLS, all the corrupt registrars will HAVE to release their hoarded domains, like it or not hahahhahahaaaaaaa "
Even if so,then what?
All it means the big players gonna buy mass subscriptions for those names and that's it.I don't see where the advantage for the average domain guy would be, unless you can afford to invest like a couple of $100000 in upfront subscription fees like the big guys can.
Although i don't like the current system either, at least it works like you see a name could drop a couple of weeks before, do what you can do to get it(snapnames,your own system,whatever) and if it drops,you MIGHT be able to get it.
Whereas with WLS you don't get NOTHING unless you have beaten the big players on day 1 of the WLS.Plus even if you managed to get a subscription, you paid for a name that maybe never drops and DON'T have the chance to change the domain you're "monitoring" - in other words, you spent money for NOTHING.
It's becoming annoying slowly but surely how folks still defend WLS when apparently having not made any real thoughts about how its gonna be.
Fact is,question shouldn't be why the WLS shouldn't be allowed but WHY should it?
There is no need for a WLS - all there is is a need to make it illegal for registrars to rent out their full connections for companies like Buydomains, a need for a binding standard release period and a need to make it illegal that a registrar can operate the registry at the same time.
WLS serves only one purpose: To make VS richer.You think it's a coincidence that VS hoards all those names? - C'mon.

 

[Anthony Ng]

Somebody has already back-ordered this name (virtualhost.com) at snapnames.com; is that you, DnPowerful?

 

[DnPowerful]

It's not me...but I was aware of that..

 

[uncle]

I called them. They said there was some glitch in their whois. They've just fixed it:

Created on..............: Thu, Jun 27, 2002
Expires on..............: Sun, Mar 09, 2008
Record last updated on..: Thu, Jun 27, 2002

Administrative Contact:
1-800-virtual, inc.
joseph delaney
p.o. box 1000
westyarmouth, ma 02673
US
Phone: 508-398-5000
Fax..: 508-771-0026
Email: joedelaney@mindspring.com

Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Register.Com
Domain Registrar
575 8th Avenue - 11th Floor
New York, NY 10018
US
Phone: 902-749-2701
Fax..: 902-749-5429
Email: domain-registrar@register.com

Domain servers in listed order:

NS.WESTHOST.NET 209.204.249.248
NS2.WESTHOST.NET 209.204.250.200


the domain had been paid through 2008 and was not about to drop

 

[RacerX]

you go D'powerful. Get over it, move on and quit the crybaby routine. Chase better names...

 

[David G]

Originally posted by uncle I called them. They said there was some glitch in their whois. They've just fixed it: Created on..............: Record last updated on..: Thu, Jun 27, 2002 Administrative Contact: 1-800-virtual, inc. joseph delaney p.o. box 1000 westyarmouth, ma 02673

I think it's possible DNPowerful has a powerful case here and may have been screwed by the drop process. I was curious and checked the name 30 min after his post and it was unreg'd and not dropped yet. A short time later it was reg'd. Very odd timing to say the least.

It's hard to believe this was merely an odd coincidence in timing today. This seems to have happened immidiately after DNPowerful wrote about his effort to grab this name which was slow in dropping.

It's possible this was not renewed late but someone read DNPowerful's Post here about the name and simply called Register.com and asked them if he could reg the name for multi-years if they would let it drop, which they agreed to do.

I know from first hand experience some registrars do agree to do this as I recently asked DomainPeople.com if they would do this on another name which should have dropped almost 1 yr earlier. They agreed to do so and emailed the reg forms. I decided to not do it as they wanted $100-yr for the registration.

Regarding RacerX's comment. I can understand why he was annoyed by this slow drop and don't think he was a crybaby as you said. Also, you imply it was not a good name. Actually it's a very good name (wish I had it). Here are the results via the easy to remember Overture Link at www.SuggestionTool.com website -

Searches done in May 2002
Count Search Term
4430 virtual host
1731 virtual web host
206 php session virtual host
164 apache virtual host
132 default virtual host overlap
49 virtual host apache
44 linux virtual host www
28 virtual web site host
25 sendmail virtual host

 

The fact that the domain record was created today is certainly interesting...

-t

 

[dotsofdomains]

Let me ask my more experienced board mavens:

If the domain truly had dropped and was registered today, the expiration date would be today, not March 9th, true??

Or, are you saying that a crooked registrar can cook the expiration calendar to make it appear like a (late) renewal rather than a drop followed by a new registration?

 

[uncle]

I thought I was skeptical, but you guys beat me totally lol


it seems that 'Created on..............: Thu, Jun 27, 2002' refers to when the whois entry was created..

I called register.com about another domain that I couldn't get the whois info for. That domain was indeed about to drop. Then I asked about virtualhost.com and said there is no whois for that domain, either. She looked it up while I was on the phone and said that in this case, the domain was paid through 2008 and is not about to drop, and that they should fix the whois entry.

the person I spoke to was some young girl from customer support. she was looking things up actually talking to me on the phone very naturally. she didn't sound very knowledgeable either. she was simply support staff. she didn't contact anybody when talking to me, she was just looking up domains that I told her to look up.

I honestly don't think there was anything suspicious about that situation, even though I'm sure there are shady practices going on in this business on a regular basis

actually, the fact that the creation date is today explains previous cases I've seen discussed here and there, when people weren't sure what to think of that. This shows clearly the creation date is nothing but the date of creation of a whois entry

 

[uncle]

I was curious and checked the name 30 min after his post and it was unreg'd and not dropped yet. A short time later it was reg'd. Very odd timing to say the least.

so it's either unregistered or not dropped yet. you can't have both.

it's not a coincidence. they let the whois show after my call. If I had been able to register it directly, I would have done it, of course. And I wouldn't apologize..

A couple minutes after I'd finished talking with her on the phone, I checked the whois and the info was already there. Then I posted that message.

It's possible this was not renewed late but someone read DNPowerful's Post here about the name and simply called Register.com and asked them if he could reg the name for multi-years if they would let it drop, which they agreed to do.

RealNames, do i read your post correctly? Are you saying I was the one who managed to convince Register.com to sell me the domain directly?

 

[DnPowerful]

RacerX, you continue to win [ Snip ] of the month award...every month, Congratulations. Go back to your Namewinner perch and continue to annoy the [ Snip ] over there.

As for the name, I think it was reclaimed by its original owner. If not, feel free to contact me, and I can offer you a herd of goats and [ snip ] as payment.

 

[uncle]

I think the name has been owned by him all the time. It's register.com's whois that was the problem

 

[DnPowerful]

I think you're right Uncle..

 

[uncle]

I used to think they were hiding whois to force people to make offers through their Virtual Broker. Now I see it's basically negligence..

 

[DotComster]

From many sources I know that Register.com stole many domains registered thru them - and I am very sad to have ever been a reseller for them.

I even asked the owner - the webmaster, support and sales dep there to give my customers domains back - no luck at all. Register.Com like a domain - they keep it.


Correction:

Ooops - I mean domains that expire, not that register.com steels domains - not even NetSol does that.

 

[Anthony Ng]

DotComster, please elaborate and substantiate your accusation with details. I guess many of us here will be very interested to know more about this. Thanks.