Isn't Telnames a good thing?

Curious, if Telnames is now the service being promoted, doesn't that still require a .tel domain name? If so, isn't that then good for all .tel domain holders?? Am I missing something here??

Thanks - Mobico

mobico wrote:Curious, if Telnames is now the service being promoted, doesn't that still require a .tel domain name? If so, isn't that then good for all .tel domain holders?? Am I missing something here??

Thanks - Mobico

The basic problem is that Telnames offers the http://YourBusiness.tel style template, which comes with the benefit of user-inputtable (via the Telnames Control Panel) background image, video, image gallery, and discount coupon.

Great - but all existing Telnic .tel owners who have bought their domains via one of the many existing Telnic registrars don't have access to this new template !

They can of course transfer their .tel to http://www.Telnames.com, but the £14.95 cost equates to $24.11 today, over twice the going rate for a .tel registration at around $10.

And given that Telnames is owned by Telnic, who as the registry control .tel registrations, many people feel that the new Telnames template should be made available to all .tel owners regardless of registrar used.

Making the situation worse is that ALL marketing for the .tel extension is now being done for this new Telnames template, leaving those with the old Telnic subdomain templates out in the cold - at least as far as "Joe Public's" recognition of .tel is concerned.

What Telnic/Telnames needs to do urgently is either to offer a big financial incentive for owners to transfer their .tels to Telnames (which will upset existing .tel registrars) OR the better solution of making the Telnames template available to all existing Telnic registrars.

But leaving the situation in the current unsatisfactory state is a recipe for a big loss of goodwill amongst owners of Telnic .tel domains !

Hope this answers your question - others may wish to chip in here as well with their views on this matter ?

http://MikeSeaton.tel

Mobico! Hello to you!
Indeed Telnames is great, as a product and also for promoting the complete .tel extension.
A Telname always includes a domain name. That is a great advantage, for customers and for all .tel domainers.
But many members on this forum (even including myself) are complaining, because Telnic offer not nearly such a good product.
It's very understandable that many people with the old design are not satisfied with their .tels; especially after they know what amazing things can be done as seen at Telnames.

Mike, I haven't read your post before answering.
I think you wrote the same just with different words!

Telnamer wrote:But many members on this forum (even including myself) are complaining, because Telnic offer not nearly such a good product.

I haven't read or heard about any costumer at Telnic who didn't complain about this big deficit. Yes, I admit Telnames is good. But I don't have my .tels registered at Telnames. Is it too much to ask to get a nice website for them, too?

OK, much clearer now and I appreciate your responses.. One thing though, as a .tel domain investor, Telnames does help promote .tel, and to me, this is a good thing.. The .tel domains that I have, whether Telnic or Telnames, still is the same DNS zone, .tel.. So my holdings benefit by the efforts of Telnames.. From a service offering, clearly see the difference, and it is unfortunate that Telnic was left for waste..

mobico wrote:Telnames does help promote .tel, and to me, this is a good thing.

That’s definitely true!
And it does not only promote .tel.
In addition it will lead to the benefit that all domain owners will get great website design in the future too.
We don’t know yet how, when and by whom; but it can’t last long anymore!

mobico wrote:OK, much clearer now and I appreciate your responses.. One thing though, as a .tel domain investor, Telnames does help promote .tel, and to me, this is a good thing.. The .tel domains that I have, whether Telnic or Telnames, still is the same DNS zone, .tel.. So my holdings benefit by the efforts of Telnames.. From a service offering, clearly see the difference, and it is unfortunate that Telnic was left for waste..

After being loyal to .tel for 3 1/2 years, you shouldn’t quit your investment right now. .tel at Telnic still can’t be used, because it was never developed until today. But finally with Telnames we see the potential for it now. We just have to wait until Telnic gives us the same. That moment our patience will pay off! Because it won’t be difficult to transfer the technology from Telnames to Telnic, we can have the hope to present our domains nicely soon and attract a lot of new investors then.

Telnames was already planned long time ago. The company was founded in 2010.
Telnic estimated a big success in the beginning (http://www.teltalk.org/t423-comparision-of-the-five-year-financial-projections-for-tel-before-after) and perhaps they wanted to push .tel to a higher level by delivering the finalized product with Telnames a few years later.
Unfortunately that keeps currently all other .tels not registered with Telnames in beta state.

Has anybody thought about filing a complaint against Telnames at ICANN for selling domains without being an accredited registrar?
Maybe this is not legitimate!

Expert wrote:Has anybody thought about filing a complaint against Telnames at ICANN

That could be an interesting step for domain investors, because their rights are strongly neglected in comparison to Telnames.

Expert wrote:Maybe this is not legitimate!

Of course not! How would you explain this statement otherwise?
http://www.teltalk.org/t71-tel-promises#223

A curious question.

Why there is no "Telnames" in the full list of registrars for .tel in the site of Telnic?

http://telnic.org/get-started-buy.html

However I see that several vendors are missing from the list.

silvano wrote:Why there is no "Telnames" in the full list of registrars for .tel in the site of Telnic?

Unfortunately telnic.org hasn't been maintained since spring 2011 anymore.

TelKing wrote:

Expert wrote:Has anybody thought about filing a complaint against Telnames at ICANN

That could be an interesting step for domain investors, because their rights are strongly neglected in comparison to Telnames.

That’s a very reasonable idea.
But I’m hesitating doing it, because I’m not sure about the consequences.

Tely wrote:

silvano wrote:Why there is no "Telnames" in the full list of registrars for .tel in the site of Telnic?

Unfortunately telnic.org hasn't been maintained since spring 2011 anymore.

And Telnames is working under the radar.
To avoid problems with ICANN, Telnic’s registrars and Telnic’s customers, it would be best for Telnames their existence doesn't get noticed,
because it’s not in other communities' interest that a much better product gets promoted with the same resources (but revenues only for Telnames).

Sunrise wrote:

TelKing wrote:

Expert wrote:Has anybody thought about filing a complaint against Telnames at ICANN

That could be an interesting step for domain investors, because their rights are strongly neglected in comparison to Telnames.

That’s a very reasonable idea.
But I’m hesitating doing it, because I’m not sure about the consequences.

ICANN will take Telnames down and then all .tel owners start from scratch
waiting for applicable website design.

But then Telnic will be forced start working in the interest of their customers.

TelGirl wrote:ICANN will take Telnames down and then all .tel owners start from scratch
waiting for applicable website design.

Or they will force Telnames to stop selling domains and applying for a license first. Probably the will be ordered to pay penalty for the past time when selling domains without permission.

I've been watching this
forum for half a year.
Today I finally registered
myself, because it's
getting more and more
interesting here.

I'm writing
something
interesting.
Stay tuned!

Do a Whois lookup on any Telnames domain (excluding staff ones) such as http://www.easywhois.com/?domain=theploughappleton.tel and you will see that the registrar is NOT Telnames Ltd. but is recorded as KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH .TEL

If you look up their web site at http://www.key-systems.net/english/business-areas/our-business-areas-at-a-single-glance.html you will see the registrar-type services they are able to offer companies such as Telnames Ltd.

So that's the technical way it's done - the only questions are:

1. Is it permissible under ICANN regulations for a registry (Telnic Ltd.) to form a new company (Telnames Ltd.) to offer registrar-type services that a registry is banned by ICANN from offering ?

2. If it is permissible, is there any problem with the new registrar-type company effectively being the same organisation i.e. same CEO, same CFO, same CMO, same offices, and many of the same staff ?

I honestly don't know the answers to the above, but I must admit I am a bit surpised that Name.com, Dynadot etc. are not getting upset at a manufacturer (the registry Telnic Ltd.) competing with them via a subsidiary company.

In most businesses, if a manufacturer or wholesaler attempts to compete with their own retailers then the retailers vote with their feet and focus their sales efforts elsewhere.

Is Telnic playing a dangerous game and risking this happening with their registrars ?

http://MikeSeaton.tel

That's probably why TelNames priced itself twice the price of registrars. Furthermore, I'm sure they figured out that by being a reseller, and with same staff, they are not in hot water with ICANN.
Mark

mikeseaton wrote:1. Is it permissible under ICANN regulations for a registry (Telnic Ltd.) to form a new company (Telnames Ltd.) to offer registrar-type services that a registry is banned by ICANN from offering ?

Wise comment and I
admit I’m not a lawyer.

But that is not the main
problem.
Even worse is the situation
that Telnic as the registry
is the only software
developer for their domains.

But instead of developing
an acceptable product for
all registrars and customers,
they do it only for
themselves and care only
about their own revenues.

They let all other registrars
and customers in the rain.
That should be reason
enough for approaching
ICANN.

This seems way too complex,

A company owned and operated by the founders of the dot tel domain, that is a re-seller of the dot tel domains from another 3rd party registrar that has a licence to be a re-seller of the dot tel domains?, that then has to pay telnic the fees of which the base price goes to telnic and they take a full cut of what name.com charges for themselves? aka half?

Name charges me £6-7, 7 due to over seas debit card payment, and telnames will charge me £15ish, so they pay half to KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH .TEL, which takes a cut and sends the rest to telnic, while telnic staff take a full half payment?

I thought the whole point of a dot tel was to be simple, and they promote that idea, nothing too complex it works out the box yet to support that it's far too complex for even me to comprehend where fees go and to whom and when.

Talk about a loophole....

Actually so telnames proves that any company (even an alleged shady practice one) can strike a re-seller deal with an accredited ICANN registrar to develop and market a dot tel proxy, so essentially if we provide the first proxy payment telnic asks for to name.com we can develop our own as a .org community and do it full opensource and have what ever we want.

Anyone want to setup a Kickstarter for it? no?