Oh, got it - so this is a standard 301-redirect scenario, but Google just isn't honoring it for some reason. That's unusual, certainly. Have you checked the headers? I use the SEOBook tool, for example?

http://tools.seobook.com/server-header-checker/

I don't mean this to be in any way condescending, but I always double-check them, across a variety of URLs. You have to make sure that the redirects are working the way you think they're working (and aren't chained to other redirects, etc.).

Did you redirect page-by-page, in the sense that every old URL has a new URL? Sometimes, the home-page or main-page redirects work, but deeper redirects fail (due to minor changes or incomplete .htaccess code).

Did anything else happen during the change? Did you change the URL structure, design, etc.?

Did the "new" (to you) domain have any existing history? Is it possible you inherited a problem, like bad links or a bad history?

Honestly, submit and forget it. You could wait months, and I don't know of any secret way. If you're following the DMOZ rules, then no submission service is really going to help. In many cases, there just aren't enough editors.

The other issue is that many new DMOZ links are on deep pages, some of which aren't even getting indexed. No indexation means no link-juice. See my blog post from last year:

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/wheres-the-love-dmoz

At the end of the day, it's just one link. It's nice to have, but your efforts are better spent elsewhere, IMO.

I think @cgman and @Nakul are both right, to a point. Technically, it's fine. Google doesn't penalize shared IPs (they're fairly common). If you're cross-linking your sites, though, it's very likely Google will devalue those links. That tactic has just been abused too much, and a shared IP is a dead giveaway.

Now, is it worth splitting all these out to gain a little more link-juice? In most cases, probably not. Google knows you own the sites, and may devalue them anyway. Chances are, they've already been devalued a bit. So, I don't think it's worth hours and hours and thousands of dollars to give them all their own homes, in most cases (it is highly situational, though).

The only other potential problem is if one site were penalized - there have been cases where that impacted sites on the same IP, especially cross-linked sites. It's not common, and you may not be at any risk, but it's not unheard of. As @Nakul said, it's a risk calculation.

I find Google is usually good about UTM parameters, but not always - for use in Adwords, they're almost never a problem, but when you use them for custom tracking, they can start to cause duplicates. Bing/Yahoo also don't handle them very well.

I'm not sure on the scope of your site/usage right now, so it's hard to give a definitive solution, but my gut reaction is that I would use canonical tags on the affected pages. If you want to double-check, you can test for the URLs in the Google index. Use something like:

site:example.com inurl:utm=

If they're not being indexed, you're probably ok, and can just keep an eye on it. If it's just a few landing pages, though (and not a massive, site-wide issue), I'd be proactive and put a canonical tag in place, if it were me.