[sf-lug] More on the whois data from March (and domain lifecycle, and ...)

[Michael Paoli]

> From: "Rick Moen" <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] More on the whois data from March (and domain  
> lifecycle)
> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 19:25:09 -0700

> Quoting Michael Paoli (Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu):
>
>> I did also notice at the time that it had apparently been renewed, with
>> expiration of 2016-07-02 - but it at least did have Jim's name on it, and
>> I think it also had "renewal period" or something like that on status -
>> which would usually be the case for something around 30 to 60 days (I forget
>> exactly how long) after a domain is renewed.
>
> Status of 'Renewal period' (or similar) strongly suggests _not_ an
> actual renewal, but rather a registrar playing expiration-time games.

Actually, I believe when I peeked earlier, that was the original renewal which
I believe was charged to Jim's card.  It was shortly after that that most
all the whois data changed - I'm presuming the renewal was reversed or
contested, Jim got his charge back, and Network Solutions reasonably so,
the domain at/past the expiration date then, took it over as theirs.
About the only bit that remained the same was the 2016-07-02 (renewed to)
expiration date - whereas most all the other whois data changed.

> Yes, this is the sort of thing I was trying to allude to without getting
> into lots of detail not immediately relevant to the present situation.

Yes, thank you for simplifying!
I undid that ;-) 8-O ... for any folks that might'a been wee bit more
interested in some of the persnickety complex bits (some of 'em are kind'a
fascinating ... either that or I really am a nerd, or maybe both).

>> if nobody jumps at the domain, it gets released after
>> some time (60 days? 90 days?  95 days?  I forget exactly, and also varies by
>> TLD and registrar).
>
> The total is always 75 days.
>
> How that gets divided up into subperiods, e.g., grace period without
> extra fee, then 'redemption period' where you pay a lot more, then
> preparing to drop into the public pool (typically the final five days)
> differs by registrar.
>
> Often the grace period is 30 days.  Sometimes 40.  Sometimes 35.  But
> the total until the drop to the public pool is always 75.

Hmmm, let's see ...
Registry Expiry Date: 2015-12-03T18:52:28Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2016-02-19T17:45:36Z
Well, looks dang close to 75 days ...
$ TZ=GMT0 date -d 'Dec 03 18:52:28 GMT 2015 + 75 days'
Tue Feb 16 18:52:28 GMT 2016
$ That's a domain that was expiring, and I snatched it up within a few
hours of it becoming up for grabs available to the public from any
registrar - so, ... I got it 77 and some fraction days after it expired
... wee bit under 78 days, and I snagged it within a few hours of it
becoming available (at least per the whois data, which at that point I
was checking every 15 (or 10?) minutes.  That was a .org TLD that the
prior registrar was GoDaddy.

Thanks for honing down the timing - it's *much* closer to 75 days than the
range I stated.

> Anyway, look, I've spoken repeatedly, for years, about the virtue of
> keeping any domain one cares about a long distance away from expiration
> (preferably years).  There are always people who choose not to listen.
> Now, y'all know the general shape of what tends to happen when people
> ignore that advice.

Yes, thanks, excellent advice!
One can lead a horse to water, but ...
Okay, so sometimes we have example by counter-example, how *not* to
do something(s) (oops).

> Me, I try to learn from observing catastrophe without having to
> experience it personally.  I hope some folks are learning from this.

Yes, *excellent* advice!
Also highly recommended reading (I especially recommend it for
electrical/electronic/computer programmers/engineers, sys admins, those
that manage them, and engineers/technical folks in general, and also
anyone who's interested and/or cares):
_Computer-Related Risks_ - Peter G. Neumann
http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/neumann-book.html

He was also cited as coauthor of a paper/article *very* recently (like today)
referenced on slashdot:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/15/07/07/1544247/crypto-experts-blast-govt-backdoors-for-encryption
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/technology/code-specialists-oppose-us-and-british-government-access-to-encrypted-communication.html