Entries tagged with “Domain name” from Domains / Internet Technology News - DNS News

Some ideas are so incredibly simple, yet they solve a very obvious problem.

One such problem is domain name statistics.

In this case I'm talking about parked domains. If you buy and sell domains it can help both parties to know how much traffic (and revenue) a domain is actually getting - as opposed to what the seller might like you to think. And of course getting those figures from an independent 3rd party makes them a lot more meaningful.

Andrew from DomainNameWire has recently launched a new service that does just that - and only that. It provides domain owners with a very simple tool to create certificates showing how much traffic, revenue etc., a domain is actually getting.

The system is very very easy to use.

Simply signup and confirm your email address.

Once you're logged in you can create certificates either for one domain, multiple domains or your entire portfolio (you can upload a text file).

The system currently supports Sedo, Parked.com, DomainSponsor and Skenzo, but other parking companies will be added over time.

Here's one I made earlier (click to enlarge) showing traffic only (some details have been obfuscated):



It's an interesting and useful service, so I'll be keeping an eye on it in the months to come.

DotCo, which is the ccTLD for Colombia, is opening up to general public registration today.
According to official sources from both Neustar and CoInternet the registry has handled over 90 thousand registrations in the first 15 minutes!

You can expect the various domain / internet news sites to carry more updates on the volume of registrations over the next 24 hours and beyond.

While the initial registration phase of any new domain extension can attract a lot of media interest and a flood of registrations you need to look at the "big picture".

In a few months time when the initial excitement has died down how many new registrations per day will there be?

More importantly, how many of the domains initially registered will be in active use? And by active use, I mean not "parked" or simply redirecting to an existing site?

The key players in CoInternet's pre-launch marketing have a lot of experience in the domain name industry, so it was not that surprising to see how much hype they were able to generate in advance.

But will that translate into active usage?

I certainly hope so, as many people have invested heavily in the new extension, but I would be worried, as always, that a disproportionate number of names might end up under the control of domain professionals.

It's too early to tell obviously, so in the meantime let's wish them all the best of luck with the launch - it looks like it's going very well so far!

ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) has formed a working group to consider changes to the domain transfer process to enhance security and reduce hijacking.  The working group consists of registrars, aftermarket players, domainers and other members of the ICANN Community.  The group published its preliminary recommendations at the ICANN meeting in Brussels two weeks ago and the 20-day comment period has just begun.

The key areas of focus for the working group are as follows:

 a.    Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be
developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf; see also http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);
b.    Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact. The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
c.    Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant near a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
d.    Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
e.    Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

Comments by registrants, registrars and other interested parties are strongly encouraged and can be viewed at:

http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#irtp-b-initial-report

The deadline for submitting comments is 25 July.

Disclosure - I chair the working group

At the ICANN meeting in Belgium today PIR announced that they have started signing their zone.

ORG, The Public Interest Registry (PIR) today announced that the .ORG domain is now in full production with Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) by accepting second level signed .ORG zones. In launching signed delegations, .ORG - the third largest domain - takes its final step in an extensive two-year process, becoming the first generic top-level domain (TLD) to offer full DNSSEC deployment. The announcement was made today at ICANN Brussels by Alexa Raad, CEO of PIR.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Neustar Announces DNSSEC for .US and .BIZ (prweb.com)

IEDR, the company that currently runs the .ie ccTLD, has announced an increase in  .ie registration figures.

According to a press release the registry is reporting that March 2010 saw a 2.2% increase in registrations, bringing the total number of .ie domains to over 141 thousand.

IEDR's CEO, David Curtin, made the following comment about the growth:

It's very encouraging indeed to have ended the first quarter with renewed growth in .ie domain registrations and a very solid performance in March, with registrations up 2.2% in March year on year and up 15.4% on the previous month. The decline in registration volumes at the beginning of the year was not unexpected given the tough and testing economic conditions Irish businesses are and continue to operate under, particularly SMEs. The increase in registrations towards the end of the first quarter and into quarter 2 points to strong, stable demand for the .ie namespace, which remains world class by international safety and security standards. The .ie namespace provides an established, trusted domain name through which start-ups and entrepreneurs can bring their goods and services to market and win consumer confidence. The IEDR is committed to maintaining the integrity, affordability and resilience of this vital platform for Irish e-commerce.

Considering that no comprehensive studies of consumer attitudes to .ie have ever been conducted on what basis does the IEDR make these claims?

If anything growth in .ie registrations is in spite of the registry, not because of them.

How the registry can make any claims about "affordability" when they are not the primary sales channel is laughable.

If the registry really wanted to boost registrations they could do a lot to cleanup their rules and processes so that Irish (and international) businesses would see .ie as a viable option. As things currently stand it can still take several days (if not longer) for a .ie registration to be fully processed due to the inconsistencies in their rules.

Next week TRAFFIC will be in Milan, Italy.

The event runs over 3 days and will feature sessions on many of Europe's more popular ccTLDs with a wide variety of industry speakers participating in the panel sessions.

There are also going to be live domain auctions, the 1st is for .eu domains, while the second one is being billed as a premium auction, though the actual catalogue hasn't been released yet.

Hopefully I'll be able to blog a bit from Milan..

(Disclosure: I'm on one of the panels to talk about co.uk)

Related articles by Zemanta

• We're Off To TRAFFIC Milan (As Long As We Can Get There!) (blacknight.com)
• T.R.A.F.F.I.C. Milan & GeoDomain Expo Agendas Firmed Up - Shows Only 3 Weeks Away (domainmacher.com)

The .me registry have announced their next premium domain auction in association with SnapNames.

This time round the focus is on a small number of very strong "call to action" names.

The initial list consists of the following domain names:
Auction.Me
Check.Me
Baby.Me
Guide.Me
Mini.Me
Change.Me
Improve.Me
Hold.Me
Clone.Me
Inform.Me
Trade.Me
Let.Me
Get.Me
Bug.Me
LookAt.Me
Avatar.Me

You'll be able to bid from May 4th to May 11th on SnapNames.

Eurid now have a YouTube channel and so far they've got three videos on there, which isn't a bad start.

The number of domain registries and registrars setting themselves up on Youtube and Facebook is constantly increasing, though only a very small number of organisations seem to really do anything more than pay lip service to the concepts.

Will the same happen with Eurid?

Here's their video to promote the ICANN meeting in Brussels in June:

Related articles by Zemanta

• St Patrick's Day Domain Special Blowout (blacknight.com)
• Nominet To Release 1 and 2 Character Domain Names (isquattedyour.eu)

Sex and the internet.
Put the two together and you are bound to find an interesting story.
While the saga surrounding sex.com took a new twist in the last couple of days, with the current owners going dotbomb, the .xxx story also took an interesting turn.

ICM Registry LLC applied to ICANN to run the .xxx TLD. You don't need to be a genius to work out which sector .xxx was aimed at - adult entertainment / mature content.

For several years ICM and ICANN tangoed.

In the end the ICANN board voted during the Lisbon meeting (March 30th 2007) against .xxx and focus shifted to other events. The Lisbon meeting was the first ICANN meeting that I attended and I remember the tension in the hotel bar on the night before the board meeting. You could have cut the air with a knife. ICM and their supporters were literally in one camp, while those in opposition were in another. Westerdal's article (linked above) covers most of the salient points in the history of the .xxx bid to that date.

However the story of .xxx did not end in Lisbon.

But ICM weren't going to simply "roll over". They'd already had one application for the .xxx TLD rejected and so they then asked for an independent review. That was back in September of last year, with parts of the process taking place earlier in the year.

The independent review involved testimony from not only ICM executives, but also former ICANN CEO Dr Paul Twomey, Dr Vint Cerf and many many others.

For those involved with the new TLD process the outcome of any review of ICM's .xxx application will be examined very closely. The new TLD application guidebook, which is still being drafted, will obviously be influenced by any previous TLD applications. Any review process that takes place outside the "normal" ICANN process could be a source of concern not only for ICANN, as an organisation, but also for organisations wishing to launch a new domain extension. If the ICANN procedures and processes can be shown to be flawed then there may be a whole range of issues for both ICANN and the applicants to deal with prior to any forward movement in the new TLDs.

So earlier this evening ICANN CEO, Rod Beckstrom, tweeted that the independent review had found in ICM's favour - with a vote of 2 - 1.

Shortly afterwards the actual decision was published on the ICANN website.

If you have the time you can plough through the entire document (about 80 pages), but the key "takeaway" from this is that ICANN has lost.

The ICANN board's decision has been shown to be flawed.

The panel states:

...the Panel finds ground for questioning the neutral and objective performance of the Board, and the consistency of its so doing with its obligation not to single out ICM Registry for disparate treatment

Not good. That strongly suggests that ICANN's board may have been influenced by external forces - in all likelihood the US government.

The rest of their findings are worth quoting, as they are very important and shine a spotlight on the inconsistencies:

The Panel concludes, for the reasons stated above, that:
First, the holdings of the Independent Review Panel are advisory in
nature; they do not constitute a binding arbitral award.
Second, the actions and decisions of the ICANN Board are not entitled
to deference whether by application of the "business judgment" rule or
otherwise; they are to be appraised not deferentially but objectively.
Third, the provision of Article 4 of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation
prescribing that ICANN "shall operate for the benefit of the Internet
community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant
principles of international law and applicable international conventions and
local law," requires ICANN to operate in conformity with relevant general
principles of law (such as good faith) as well as relevant principles of
international law, applicable international conventions, and the law of the
State of California.
Fourth, the Board of ICANN in adopting its resolutions of June 1, 2005,
found that the application of ICM Registry for the .XXX sTLD met the required
sponsorship criteria.
Fifth, the Board's reconsideration of that finding was not consistent
with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy.
Sixth, in respect of the first foregoing holding, ICANN prevails; in
respect of the second foregoing holding, ICM Registry prevails; in respect of
the third foregoing holding, ICM Registry prevails; in respect of the fourth
foregoing holding, ICM Registry prevails; and in respect of the fifth foregoing
holding, ICM Registry prevails. Accordingly, the prevailing party is ICM
Registry. It follows that, in pursuance of Article IV, Section 3(12) of the
Bylaws, ICANN shall be responsible for bearing all costs of the IRP Provider.
Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees. Therefore, the administrative
fees and expenses of the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, totaling
$4,500.00, shall be borne entirely by ICANN, and the compensation and
expenses of the Independent Review Panel, totaling $473,744.91, shall be
borne entirely by ICANN. ICANN shall accordingly reimburse ICM Registry
with the sum of $241,372.46, representing that portion of said fees and
expenses in excess of the apportioned costs previously incurred by ICM
Registry.

 
Note the financial portion of the judgement. ICANN, which has already had a budget overrun, gets hit again, this time for nearly half a million dollars.

You can download the full text of the review panel's decision from the ICANN website, although some sections have been redacted by ICM for reasons of confidentiality.

Since this was released on a Friday night it's unlikely that there will be much public reaction from either ICANN, ICM or any others until next week, but I suspect that there will be some very interesting discussions surrounding this decision.

Amazing how a single document can rock the boat, isn't it?

UPDATE: Since this story has attracted quite a bit of attention from ICANN observers some of their comments on Twitter and elsewhere have led to extra material worth citing. Former ICANN board member Susan Crawford made a very interesting statement about the Board's vote, which is worth reading. (Thanks to Antony Van Couvering for the link)

UPDATE 2: Milton Mueller who was one of the expert witnesses during the review of .xxx has posted on the subject as well.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sex.com goes titsup (go.theregister.com)
• Sex.com at Foreclosure Auction? (domainmacher.com)

SIDN, the registry operator for .nl, has announced the introduction of a new service for its registrars. The new phishing alert service harnesses data provided by Netcraft and will automatically email the registrar of record of any .nl domain name that is flagged as being used in a phishing attack.

Every five minutes or so, SIDN checks Netcraft's suspect URL database,
which is constantly being updated. Every time a .nl URL is added to the
database, an e-mail message is automatically sent to the relevant
registrar's administrative contact e-mail address. In other words, the
system does not rely on periodic reporting, but on almost immediate
individualised e-mail contact. It therefore provides a basis for very
rapid intervention. The service is due to enter use on February 15,
2010.

Message content
The e-mail sent to draw a registrar's attention to the fact that a
client is running a website that may be fraudulent will include the
following information:

- Suspected phishing site URL
- Host: the IP address of the system running the website
- Country: the country of origin of the IP address
- Date: the date and time that the suspect site was detected
- Target: the name of the company that seems to be targeted

SIDN are conscious of the danger of such a service and warn registrars that there may be false alarms.

It will be interesting to see how registrars and the wider internet community react to the introduction of this service.

It's sometimes easy to forget that the domain industry is a relatively new sector.

Elliot Noss, CEO of Tucows, sent an open letter to all of OpenSRS' resellers yesterday celebrating their ten years in business:

Hello,

With great pride I note that January marks the 10th anniversary of the first domain name registered through OpenSRS.

Back in the spring and summer of 1999, we started planning for a different way to sell domain names. We had two businesses at the time, the Tucows.com software libraries and a large Toronto ISP, Internet Direct.

We knew that domain names should be simple and inexpensive to sell, and were made much too difficult and expensive by the monopoly provider. We were confident that we could fix that.

We also knew something more important. With competition coming, the companies planning to launch were simply copying the monopoly and maybe dropping the price a little. Domain names would likely be offered from $35/year!

And we recognized that registrars didn't sell domain names, service providers did.

We took those beliefs and poured them into a service offering that launched in January of 2000. It was an immediate success.

Now ten years later, and we still have our very first customer still happily and actively selling domains through OpenSRS. The first domain we sold is still managed by OpenSRS. And we've grown every single year.

So much is different now than it was then. The meaning of "service provider" has changed. In 2000, what we today know as web hosts were really just evolving out of the loam, forced into existence by telcos and cablecos killing dialup ISPs through regulation. Now the whole concept of the web host is morphing into something different, and, in many ways there may be a re-integration of "ISPs" and "web hosts".

So much is the same as it was then. People still need a personal relationship to help them get the most out of the Internet. Too many people still don't have one. There is still a huge gap between what people CAN do on the Internet and what they are ABLE to do.

Most importantly, we still view service providers as the greatest distribution channel in the Internet economy. We care deeply about our relationships with them and embrace the ones that care deeply about their relationships with their customers. So many of you are still around TEN YEARS LATER! You should be proud. I know I am.

Thanks to all our customers, employees and partners. We hope and expect that the next ten years will be even better!

Sincerely,

Elliot Noss
CEO Tucows Inc.

Where will they be in ten years time?

Again on the subject of new TLDs ....

One of the "issues" that concerned a number of people is the concept of "vertical separation".

The basic idea is that registries and registrars should be kept separate.

While that is a wonderful Utopian ideal, the reality is that in the real world companies own other companies, people trade in stocks and shares etc., etc. So it's far from being a simple "cut and dried" situation.

It's also a situation that I personally think has been blown out of all proportion. And of course the people who are pushing it hard are the current registry operators. Can you say "monopoly"?
Or how about "fear"?

Be that as it may, the debate has been going on for months. During the Seoul meeting there was a public debate where both sides of the argument were able to "have it out", but while that may have helped clarify things for some people it didn't resolve it.

Fast forward to January 2010.

The GNSO council has now voted that the only way to resolve this issue once and for all is via  a PDP - which is ICANN speak for a quite drawn out policy development process:

A set of formal steps, as defined in the ICANN bylaws, to guide the initiation, internal and external review, timing and approval of policies needed to coordinate the global Internet's system of unique identifiers.

In many cases a PDP can take years to go through the full process, though there have been some exceptions in the recent past (think "tasting").

The motion that the GNSO council approved sets very clear limits on the PDP, but whether or not it will be possible for a policy debate as contentious (for some people) as this to be resolved in the 16 weeks mentioned or not is a different matter.

IDNs might be a slightly "hot" topic at the moment following on from ICANN's launch of the IDN cctld program recently.

However, IDNs are NOT a new topic.

Far from it.

They've been around for quite some time.

Unfortunately neither The Times Online or Mashable seem to have done any homework. Considering the amount of content available on IDNs that has been researched and actually proven - you know, factual information, it's pretty amazing that not one, but two respected online publications manage to get something so completely wrong.

Andrew from Domain Name Wire explains very succinctly why both Mashable and The Times are wrong.

As anyone who actually bothers doing a bit of research into IDNs could tell you, the IDN projects have been discussed at length and from every imaginable angle.

Do the authors of those two articles honestly think that the DNS community hadn't thought about potential phishing problems?

Do they think we're all idiots?

It's not as if we ever have to deal with phishing or any other DNS related attacks is it?

We're just misinformed observers, like them, aren't we?

And here I was thinking that The Times was a quality publication ..

Oh well, back to the drawing board I guess.

Nominet, the registry that handled the UK namespace, has announced that the 8 millionth domain has been registered.

The domain in question was lambethsuperhomes.org.uk, which was registered for a company in London.

Impressive growth figures!

However all of this positive news could be overshadowed by the "elephant in the room" - the Digital Economy Bill.

The UK's Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a number of complaints brought against Domain Registry of America (DROA).

In a recent ruling the UK regulator's decision includes responses from DROA and is worth reading.

The complaint centred around three complaints:

Three recipients believed the mailing was misleading because it appeared to be a bill requiring payment and implied they had transferred a domain name registration when they had not.

No surprise there.

Their reply, however,  should raise a few eyebrows:

Domain Renewal Group (DRG) said their mailing was intended to notify recipients that their domain name was about to expire and, because of deregulation in the Domain Name industry, consumers had a choice of registrars with whom to renew or register a domain name.  They said their mailing did not claim that the recipient's domain name had been transferred to DRG or that payment was due without agreeing to move to their company.  They believed this was clear from the claims "Domain name holders are not obligated to renew their domain name with their current Registrar or with the Domain Renewal Group", "Review our prices and decide for yourself.  You are under no obligation to pay the amounts stated below, unless you accept this offer" and "This notice is not a bill, it is rather an easy means of payment should you decide to switch your domain name registration to the Domain Renewal Group".

The ASA didn't believe their explanation:

The ASA noted the mailing was headed "Domain Name Expiration Notice" and closely resembled a bill, including a credit card payment slip, and considered recipients were likely to infer that their domain name had been transferred to DRG and a renewal payment was now required.  We noted the mailing stated "This notice is not a bill ...", "You are under no obligation to pay the amounts stated below ..." and "... now is the time to transfer and renew your name from your current Registrar to the Domain renewal Group ...", but did not consider it was sufficient to remove the overall impression that the mailing was a genuine bill requiring payment.  We concluded that the mailing was misleading for falsely implying that recipients had already transferred their domain name to DRG and for not making sufficiently clear that it was a marketing communication

What does this mean for DROA?

Unfortunately very little, as the ASA does not have a huge amount of power, nor does its counterpart in any other country, at least not to my knowledge.

I don't normally do this, but I was feeling a bit "naughty" this morning, so here you go ..


Over at Blacknight we've just launched a "silly" promo on .be registrations and transfers. We're also running several other domain discount promotions at the moment, so if you want to switch provider, save money or register *that* domain  .. now's the time!

(Normal blogging will resume later .. )

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cheap EU Domains - What Would You Do To Get One? (blacknight.com)
• Info Price Shocker (blacknight.com)
• Dotmobi Price Slash (blacknight.com)

You'll have to excuse me for the Shakespeare quote, but something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

While talking to some of the people involved with the Danish domain industry it becomes evident that there is something something seriously wrong with how .dk handles disputes.

A recent case revolved around the domain orango.dk

The domain had been registered for nearly 10 years (since 2000)

The registrant was using the domain in good faith since they registered the domain name, but now found themselves subject to a dispute.

The dispute involves a 3rd party that have requested a trademark for "orango", but only did so this year.

Somehow, and this is the bit that makes absolutely no sense to me, the arbitration court found in favour of the complainant!

If that isn't a reverse hijack then I'd love to know what it is!

Maybe Danish registrants would be better off using other TLDs?

You can download the original text of the decision here (it's in Danish)

Thanks to the guys in Larsen Data for providing various translations of it. (Peter has posted about it also - again in Danish)

In an interesting move several members of the ICANN community formed an "informal" Working Group to discuss the concept of "expressions of interest" in new TLDs. This all happened very quickly, which is more or less the opposite to how most ICANN related activities progress.

Earlier this evening the group submitted its report / paper to ICANN

The report, which runs to about 11 pages, is concise and seems to have covered most of the areas of interest. What's also interesting to note is that the people involved came from a variety of areas and probably give a reasonably good cross-section of the ICANN community.

If you have a few minutes the document is definitely worth reading and is a nice example of how a group of people can get things done quickly and efficiently when needed.

Now if only the rest of the ICANN processes were this quick to reach consensus!

(Maybe pigs flying is more likely!)

ICANN staff informed the Registrar Stakeholder Group at the meeting in Seoul, Korea, that 638 registrars have either signed the new RAA or are in the process of signing it.

While it may prove difficult to encourage all registrars to signup voluntarily ie. prior to contract expiry it's encouraging to see that the bulk of domain registrations are now covered by the new contract.

What is unfortunate, however, is that the registrant rights and obligations document still has not been drafted. Work on this document has begun, but it could be several months before the final document is made public and incorporated into registrar agreements.

Related articles by Zemanta

• ICANN Has Seoul (blacknight.com)

PIR, the organisation behind .org (dotOrg), has released its first biannual domain report - The Dashboard.

The report, which runs to 10 pages, goes into detail on the type of websites that opt for .org as their domain extension. Not surprisingly a lot of non-profit or non-commercial sites are using .org.

What's also interesting to see, and will come as positive news to industry insiders, is that registrations have continued to grow even while global economies have faltered.

PIR are reporting an 11% growth in registrations, which is very positive news indeed.

Press release and report are available on the PIR site.