Who will be the first registrar to offer...

mikeseaton wrote:Some registrars do seem to have problems running their own TelHosting, particularly with expired domains that change ownership (sometimes before the scheduled deletion date/time).

I'm sure many would be happy to let Telnames handle the TelHosting (for a small annual fee that is added onto the domain's cost) and concentrate on what they do best i.e. domain registration, renewal and transfer.

mikeseaton wrote:

mikeseaton wrote:Some registrars do seem to have problems running their own TelHosting, particularly with expired domains that change ownership (sometimes before the scheduled deletion date/time).

I'm sure many would be happy to let Telnames handle the TelHosting (for a small annual fee that is added onto the domain's cost) and concentrate on what they do best i.e. domain registration, renewal and transfer.

The current thread http://telnic.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2912 on Telnic's Forum just confirms the sense of what I am saying about TelHosting being handled by one organisation, rather than by each individual registrar with the large burden that currently imposes on them.

http://MikeSeaton.tel

To clarify the process with regards to a registrar setting up a .tel account for a name that has previously expired/been transferred:

The registrar has two tasks when setting up a .tel in their partition:
a. Creating the account in their partition (including setting the username and password)
b. Setting up the domain and zone so that the .tel name points to that specific account.

Having these as separate steps allows the registrar to prepopulate the .tel if they wish to do so (as many do). It also minimises any downtime for the domain in the case of a transfer since the account can be set up before the transfer even completes.

As a domain can only have one zone, on launch of .tel we advised all registrars that they should delete the zone in their partition should a name be deleted, expired or transferred to another registrar. It soon became clear that this wasn’t happening and as a result “new” registrars were having an issue creating the zone as the “old” zone still existed. To circumvent this issue we updated the “CreateZone” command used by the registrars two years ago, so that an additional parameter could be used to force creation of the zone even in the event of another zone already existing. All registrars were notified of this update and how it could help them in the zone creation process, especially in the case of transfers and registration of recently expired names. A reminder was also sent to registrars a few months later.

The zone creation command can only succeed if the registrar making the request matches the sponsoring registrar for the name. It seems that some commands are failing this requirement for one of two reasons:

1. The registrar company has a number of different registrar accounts which they use and they are making the request from a different account to the one actually used to register the name. I see that some registrars (e.g. Name.com) are using different registrar accounts for drop catching. The command must be issued from the registrar account to which the name was registered.
2. The command is made before the WHOIS has been updated to show the “new” registrar. It is possible that the issues some of you are experiencing are the result of “drop-catches” whereby the command is being made before the WHOIS has updated and is failing as a result. Reissuing the command (with the correct parameter for forcing creation of the zone) once the WHOIS is updated will ensure that the zone is correctly created and pointing to the “new” partition.

Registrars also have the ability to manually create zones using their partition control panel. Creating zones in this way also deletes the “old” zone so that setup is complete.

As mentioned, all registrars have been sent this information, and I also remind them of the steps required to make this a smooth process whenever I contact them regarding this issue. That is actually all I can do in this process. Names which have an issue which is then resolved, is resolved either by the registrar reissuing the create zone command correctly or manually creating the zone.

The error message given above regarding the 5 nameservers being blocked means that the create zone command has failed either:
1. Because the “old” zone still exists and the additional API parameter has not been used OR
2. The command was issued from the incorrect registrar CTH account OR
3. The command was issued before the registrar became the sponsoring registrar in the WHOIS

The situation where a user registers a name but when it is activated still shows the previous owner’s details is the result of the “old” zone still being active and the registrar not yet having created the new zone correctly.

I apologise if this is overly technical for many, but with “fingers being pointed” at Telnic as stated above, I thought it was important that the process is explained fully.

Different registrars have different needs and processes. For example, some wish to keep the CTH username and password consistent to their system credentials. Others allow a clickthrough without logging into the CTH specifically. All of these need to be able to set the credentials themselves.

Similarly separating the zone file from the CTH creation process allows the accounts to be set up first, which can really help with the speed it takes for the .tel to be resolving. Some registrars also have a need at times to move names between accounts and partitions. This separation gives them complete control in being able to set the new partition up ready for the user before activating the zone, otherwise there would be inevitable downtime during such actions.

The process outlined above gives registrars the most flexibility and the actual zone creation requires just one API call.

TelAbsorbs wrote:When you are hungry for 15 days, and he knows that, is it help when you get food the 15th day?

JH wrote:I had this problem many times.

When I've experienced my domains are not working, I just e-mailed my registrar and usually within 24 hours the problem was solved.

mikeseaton wrote:I'm sure many would be happy to let Telnames handle the TelHosting (for a small annual fee that is added onto the domain's cost) and concentrate on what they do best i.e. domain registration, renewal and transfer.

My guess is that it could be Name.com, or maybe Moniker (since they are now owned by the same company that runs the registrar that Telnames has partnered with).

Once one takes the plunge, others will follow quickly IMO.

Even Aled explained how complicated the TelHosting seems to be, several people just complained on TelTalk they can't manage their .tel domains.

This general issue needs some more attention to be solved.

If .tel should become successful (and therefore would be used by many more users than today) then people shouldn't wait for long time until they have access to their .tel domains.

mikeseaton wrote:...the Telnames template as now shown by Telnic's promo domain http://Ben.tel ?

Some registrars do seem to have problems running their own TelHosting, particularly with expired domains that change ownership (sometimes before the scheduled deletion date/time).

I'm sure many would be happy to let Telnames handle the TelHosting (for a small annual fee that is added onto the domain's cost) and concentrate on what they do best i.e. domain registration, renewal and transfer.

mikeseaton wrote:

mikeseaton wrote:...the Telnames template as now shown by Telnic's promo domain http://Ben.tel ?

Some registrars do seem to have problems running their own TelHosting, particularly with expired domains that change ownership (sometimes before the scheduled deletion date/time).

I'm sure many would be happy to let Telnames handle the TelHosting (for a small annual fee that is added onto the domain's cost) and concentrate on what they do best i.e. domain registration, renewal and transfer.

Still waiting for an answer to the question posed by this thread - or is it NONE WILL ?

mikeseaton wrote:I'm going to answer my own question - following the forthcoming price hike by Telnames to £24.95 (approx $40) - NONE WILL !

http://MikeSeaton.tel

Tim Spears wrote:$40 can be very cheap from the right angle: http://www.teltalk.org/t119-the-vancouver-dottel-meetup-group

Tim Spears wrote:$40 can be very cheap from the right angle: http://www.teltalk.org/t119-the-vancouver-dottel-meetup-group

maxi wrote:

Tim Spears wrote:$40 can be very cheap from the right angle: http://www.teltalk.org/t119-the-vancouver-dottel-meetup-group

Now, after your post, Telnic will immediatly decide, that he will get more money if he will began to sell TELs for 4$0 each.

Orangeblossom wrote:With such a price differential between a .Tel and a Telname, isn't that just the perfect excuse for .Tel registrars to jack the price up?

mikeseaton wrote:Here's the price structure for RapidTimeDotTel.com - http://rapidtimedottel.com/wordpress/?page_id=1021

I note that even with the $149.99 package you only get 3 Updates !

http://MikeSeaton.tel

mikeseaton wrote:I suppose a price rise by Telnic .tel registrars could happen, after all if your competition raises its prices by nearly 67% there must be a temptation to follow suit !

Maybe its best to renew now rather than later, assuming of course that renewal is part of your game plan ?

http://MikeSeaton.tel

hulltv wrote:business don't have to have a tel

hulltv wrote:telnames just one page?there having a laugh!