July 2009 Archives
So what does a ccTLD operator do when they're worried about cashflow?
They go off and spend thousands on a glossy annual report obviously!
The IEDR's annual report and review for 2008 is the glossiest one they've produced to date. As usual it contains plenty of fluff while ignoring anything of substance.
In the Chairman's introductory statement they reveal that:
"The board has agreed terms of reference for a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) to advise on .ie namespace policy matters, the membership to be representative of relevant stakeholder organisations"
Well that's charming.
The document that was being discussed between the IEDR and its resellers was firmly slanted in the IEDR's favour and had not been accepted by the reseller community.
So now it looks like the IEDR have done what they always do and unilaterally implemented a change without accepting feedback from the companies that pay their bills (registrars / resellers) or those that give them a raison d'etre (registrants).
Scanlan goes on to infer that the IEDR have been appointed as the registry operator for the .ie namespace permanently. This is not the case, unless whoever wrote the Comreg documents is a very bad communicator, which I somehow doubt.
Making repeated reference to the Comreg report is annoying, as Comreg did not actually publish the report of the external consultants. All that was published was the result of the public consultation - and even that was months behind schedule and did not reveal anything really meaty.
So what about the rest of this year's report?
Well it has got lots of plenty glossy photos of IE registrants (Why aren't they using this in publications that the public see???) there isn't a huge amount of substance.
The report states the following about the aftermarket which underlines the level of their ignorance
".. Furthermore, there is no secondary market for .ie domains, which reduces the incentive for 'domainers' to engage in cybersquatting and domain warehousing"
So all "domainers" are "cybersquatters"?
Why does the IEDR have such a ridiculous fear of the secondary market?
Other registry operators such as AFNIC, which also restricts registrations to some degree, do not see aftermarket activity in such negative terms.
It could also be argued that the registry's restriction on trade in domains is unlawful
One could also argue that the IEDR's current "managed registry" model, whatever that is exactly, contravenes Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In case you're not familiar with that specific article here it is:
"ARTICLE 10
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. "
Has anyone ever challenged the consitutionality of the IEDR's stance?
As a body that draws its powers from Comreg's regulation and Irish legislation it cannot continually use the excuse of being a private company.
But I still fail to see how the IEDR can justify the expense of a glossy report like this yet be incapable of communicating an important policy change to its stakeholders (sole traders may now register their surname). Spending money on improving their communications with stakeholders would appear to be a better way of investing their funds.
Do Comreg care enough to actually act?
Or will they sit idly by while the IEDR cherrypick which voices to hear and implement policy changes with little or no real input?
UPDATE: I've attached the full report (4.2 MB PDF):
IEDR AN Report 08-web.pdf
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6e257b83-d385-4893-8109-013daef47840)
They go off and spend thousands on a glossy annual report obviously!
The IEDR's annual report and review for 2008 is the glossiest one they've produced to date. As usual it contains plenty of fluff while ignoring anything of substance.
In the Chairman's introductory statement they reveal that:
"The board has agreed terms of reference for a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) to advise on .ie namespace policy matters, the membership to be representative of relevant stakeholder organisations"
Well that's charming.
The document that was being discussed between the IEDR and its resellers was firmly slanted in the IEDR's favour and had not been accepted by the reseller community.
So now it looks like the IEDR have done what they always do and unilaterally implemented a change without accepting feedback from the companies that pay their bills (registrars / resellers) or those that give them a raison d'etre (registrants).
Scanlan goes on to infer that the IEDR have been appointed as the registry operator for the .ie namespace permanently. This is not the case, unless whoever wrote the Comreg documents is a very bad communicator, which I somehow doubt.
Making repeated reference to the Comreg report is annoying, as Comreg did not actually publish the report of the external consultants. All that was published was the result of the public consultation - and even that was months behind schedule and did not reveal anything really meaty.
So what about the rest of this year's report?
Well it has got lots of plenty glossy photos of IE registrants (Why aren't they using this in publications that the public see???) there isn't a huge amount of substance.
The report states the following about the aftermarket which underlines the level of their ignorance
".. Furthermore, there is no secondary market for .ie domains, which reduces the incentive for 'domainers' to engage in cybersquatting and domain warehousing"
So all "domainers" are "cybersquatters"?
Why does the IEDR have such a ridiculous fear of the secondary market?
Other registry operators such as AFNIC, which also restricts registrations to some degree, do not see aftermarket activity in such negative terms.
It could also be argued that the registry's restriction on trade in domains is unlawful
One could also argue that the IEDR's current "managed registry" model, whatever that is exactly, contravenes Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In case you're not familiar with that specific article here it is:
"ARTICLE 10
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. "
Has anyone ever challenged the consitutionality of the IEDR's stance?
As a body that draws its powers from Comreg's regulation and Irish legislation it cannot continually use the excuse of being a private company.
But I still fail to see how the IEDR can justify the expense of a glossy report like this yet be incapable of communicating an important policy change to its stakeholders (sole traders may now register their surname). Spending money on improving their communications with stakeholders would appear to be a better way of investing their funds.
Do Comreg care enough to actually act?
Or will they sit idly by while the IEDR cherrypick which voices to hear and implement policy changes with little or no real input?
UPDATE: I've attached the full report (4.2 MB PDF):
IEDR AN Report 08-web.pdf
Minds and Machines had several videos about some of the new TLD projects they're working on at the ICANN meeting in Sydney.
They're now available on YouTube
Unfortunately they don't seem to have one up there yet for dotFood (Wolfgang Puck)
Here's the one about DotRadio:
They're now available on YouTube
Unfortunately they don't seem to have one up there yet for dotFood (Wolfgang Puck)
Here's the one about DotRadio:
Lead Networks, who I mentioned a few weeks ago, have lost their ICANN accreditation.
The ICANN announcement includes some of the details and ICANN are currently seeking expressions of interest from other registrars to take over the portfolio of domains (approximately 70 - 80 thousand names according to ICANN)
According to ICANN Lead Networks was escrowing data, so the registrant details are thought to be both complete and accurate. This makes a very pleasant and welcome change compared to some of the situations that have arisen with previous de-accreditations, where registrant data was not being escrowed and was not supplied by the registrar.
ICANN's compliance team seems to be working flat out at present, which is probably a good thing for the industry as a whole!
It's also interesting to note that the number of accredited registrars is dropping, as companies either merge or sell out.
The ICANN announcement includes some of the details and ICANN are currently seeking expressions of interest from other registrars to take over the portfolio of domains (approximately 70 - 80 thousand names according to ICANN)
According to ICANN Lead Networks was escrowing data, so the registrant details are thought to be both complete and accurate. This makes a very pleasant and welcome change compared to some of the situations that have arisen with previous de-accreditations, where registrant data was not being escrowed and was not supplied by the registrar.
ICANN's compliance team seems to be working flat out at present, which is probably a good thing for the industry as a whole!
It's also interesting to note that the number of accredited registrars is dropping, as companies either merge or sell out.
Nominet has announced the results of the 2009 board election for non-executive directors.
The three directors elected were:
The three directors elected were:
- Clive Grace
- Nora Nanayakkara
- Jonathan Robinson
The IEDR's attempt at introducing some level of transparency, that I mentioned previously, has been rejected by its resellers.
Exact details of how many resellers actually rejected the proposal have not been provided as yet.
Exact details of how many resellers actually rejected the proposal have not been provided as yet.
Nominet's AGM is taking place today in London.
If you are a Nominet member but are unable to attend in person there is a webcast available from 10am this morning.
If you are a Nominet member but are unable to attend in person there is a webcast available from 10am this morning.
Today marks the last day for public comments on the IRT (trademark protection) final report.
The report, which I've mentioned a few times in the past, was drafted from the perspective of trademark holders in an effort to allay their fears and concerns associated with the launch of the new TLD program.
You can see the comments submitted to date here and read the report here.
I've already made several submissions on the topic, but to summarise:
The report, which I've mentioned a few times in the past, was drafted from the perspective of trademark holders in an effort to allay their fears and concerns associated with the launch of the new TLD program.
You can see the comments submitted to date here and read the report here.
I've already made several submissions on the topic, but to summarise:
- Whois and privacy is a matter of concern
- The concept of a "global" trademark list is dangerous
- The rapid suspension model is dangerous and open to abuse
The Nominet Board elections are currently taking place.
The list of candidates may be found here
Who should you vote for?
I'm on the record as supporting Nora's candidacy.
The list of candidates may be found here
Who should you vote for?
I'm on the record as supporting Nora's candidacy.
HarperCollins, the UK based publishing house, has won a WIPO domain dispute.
The dispute centred around the domain: collinsdictionary.com
According to Hosterstats the domain was first registered back in 2005, but has been parked ever since.
The registrant did not respond, so the domain dispute was decided in HarperCollins' favour.
The only odd thing is that the decision is dated almost 2 years ago, yet it was only published today.
Recent Comments
Tom Murphy on High Profile DNS Still Vulnerable To Kaminsky Exploit: I'm the fo
Michele Neylon on High Profile DNS Still Vulnerable To Kaminsky Exploit: Dan Thank
Dan Kaminsky on High Profile DNS Still Vulnerable To Kaminsky Exploit: Not really
Ken on ICANN Ignoring Deadlines: Lets hope
Dave on ICM Registry's Graphic of ICANN options: Seems simp
Hosting365 Accreditation Sunk on Domain Registry Of America Get Slapped In UK: McCarron l
Francesco on EU IDNs - Some Governments Still Don't Get It!: Actually i
Michele Neylon on Food Fight Anyone?: Jorge Nic
Jorge on Food Fight Anyone?: Coming soo