Entries tagged with “cctld” from Domains / Internet Technology News - DNS News
DNS.be, the registry operator for the .be namespace, has released figures on .be usage.
According to the report, which was released earlier today, there are over 600 thousand websites using .be. In real terms this means that roughly 7 out of 10 .be domains is actively being used for websites. Of course, as the report points out, just because a .be doesn't direct to a website does not mean that is not being used for email or other services.
Some more figures:
"43% of all websites consists of just one page, while 27% have more than one page.
- 14% of domain names direct visitors to another domain name.
- Only 16% of domain names have no website. Which does not mean they are not being used, because you can also create your own e-mail addresses when you have a domain name.
- On average, each homepage at a Belgian website features 13 links.
- 57% feature JavaScript, used mainly for interactive applications in a website
- 56% have CSS, which streamlines the layout of all the pages of a website
- 11% use Flash to display animations and web-videos
- 27% feature keywords that indicate search engines what the website is about
"
It would be interesting to see if the single page sites were merely placeholders or parked, but the press release does not go into that much detail.
In any case, it's always interesting to see what people are actually doing with domains.
More information is available on the registry's site.
According to the report, which was released earlier today, there are over 600 thousand websites using .be. In real terms this means that roughly 7 out of 10 .be domains is actively being used for websites. Of course, as the report points out, just because a .be doesn't direct to a website does not mean that is not being used for email or other services.
Some more figures:
"43% of all websites consists of just one page, while 27% have more than one page.
- 14% of domain names direct visitors to another domain name.
- Only 16% of domain names have no website. Which does not mean they are not being used, because you can also create your own e-mail addresses when you have a domain name.
- On average, each homepage at a Belgian website features 13 links.
- 57% feature JavaScript, used mainly for interactive applications in a website
- 56% have CSS, which streamlines the layout of all the pages of a website
- 11% use Flash to display animations and web-videos
- 27% feature keywords that indicate search engines what the website is about
"
It would be interesting to see if the single page sites were merely placeholders or parked, but the press release does not go into that much detail.
In any case, it's always interesting to see what people are actually doing with domains.
More information is available on the registry's site.
Today marks the 20th anniversary of .mx (Mexico).
The registry operator is celebrating its 20 years of operation by offering reduced pricing on domain registrations throughout the month of February 2009
The registry operator is celebrating its 20 years of operation by offering reduced pricing on domain registrations throughout the month of February 2009
Nominet are currently seeking feedback from members and the public on governance matters:
The governance review, which we announced last year, led by Professor Bob Garratt, is making good progress. As part of that process, we have engaged an independent company, Mutuo, to conduct research into stakeholders' views on governance. The results of this research will be considered by Prof Garratt in his review, which should be published around the end of March. Mutuo have asked us to host a questionnaire for all stakeholders in Nominet to feedback their opinions about the governance of Nominet.You can complete the short questionnaire on their site
DNS.be, who run the Belgian (.be) registry have announced their figures and report for 2008.Unlike some registries that focus purely on number, the Belgian registry has done some analysis on the type of registrant.
Some of the results are not surprising.
Most .be domains are registered to Belgians (over 70%).
69% are registered by Flemings, so does that mean that the Walloons are registering .com or .fr instead?
The number of .be domains registered by private individuals continues to grow, with them now accounting for 28% of the total
16 registrars are responsible for more than 50% of registrations (this would appear to be a common trend in ccTLDs)
The registry also reported that there was a growth of 16.7% in the namespace overall.
You can read the full release on their site
Who needs new gTLDs when you can grab your own ccTLD!
Last year I noticed a trend in the ccTLD world, with a lot of governments and interest groups taking an interest in governance of their namespaces.
AFNIC, which runs .fr and several other cctlds, came under review from the French government.
Less than a year later the French government has put the registry management out to tender.
Interested parties have 52 days from the announcement, which was made on January 15th, to submit their proposals.
The winning bidder will get the contract for an initial period of 7 years.
So who is likely to place a bid?
Presumably AFNIC, who currently manage the namespace, will be in there, but there are bound to be others. Antony Van Couvering hints at COCCA making a play for it, while Afilias and several others may also be interested in getting a pitch in.
Last year I noticed a trend in the ccTLD world, with a lot of governments and interest groups taking an interest in governance of their namespaces.
AFNIC, which runs .fr and several other cctlds, came under review from the French government.
Less than a year later the French government has put the registry management out to tender.
Interested parties have 52 days from the announcement, which was made on January 15th, to submit their proposals.
The winning bidder will get the contract for an initial period of 7 years.
So who is likely to place a bid?
Presumably AFNIC, who currently manage the namespace, will be in there, but there are bound to be others. Antony Van Couvering hints at COCCA making a play for it, while Afilias and several others may also be interested in getting a pitch in.
Jim Davies, who was at the centre of a recent debacle involving Nominet, has tendered his resignation from the board.
In a letter to Bob Gilbert, which Mr Davies also posted to a members' mailing list this afternoon, Davies cited his continued disagreement with the Board's conduct and that of the organisation's executives as reasons for his resignation. Oddly enough no mention appears to have been made of the contract that he had refused to sign.
I touched on some of this debacle back in November
The Register's article covers some of the background
In a letter to Bob Gilbert, which Mr Davies also posted to a members' mailing list this afternoon, Davies cited his continued disagreement with the Board's conduct and that of the organisation's executives as reasons for his resignation. Oddly enough no mention appears to have been made of the contract that he had refused to sign.
I touched on some of this debacle back in November
The Register's article covers some of the background
Although it's several months later than announced, Comreg (Irish Communications Regulator), has finally published its report on the consultation of IEDR and the IE ccTLD.
The regulator published a press release (below) as well as all submissions received and the consultation conclusions based on the submissions.
What still has not been disclosed is the external consultants' report which was presented over a year ago.
I will followup with more in depth analysis of the final document, but due to its nature I need to read it carefully.
The regulator published a press release (below) as well as all submissions received and the consultation conclusions based on the submissions.
The Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) has today published its
Response to Consultation on a new framework for the regulation and management of .ie,
Ireland's Top Level Domain (TLD), which is part of the Internet's global Domain Name
System.
Under the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007, ComReg is responsible
for making regulations to ensure the effective management and administration of .ie in the
best interests of Irish consumers who use this national resource. The .ie domain is
currently managed by IE Domain Registry Ltd. (IEDR).
In June 2008, ComReg consulted on a wide range of issues and simultaneously conducted
a comprehensive independent review and due diligence analysis of IEDR's activities. The
Response to Consultation now describes the outcome of that process and outlines
ComReg's conclusions and decisions on a suitable regulatory framework for the .ie
domain. The main points are:
- ComReg will, by way of regulation, appoint IEDR as the authority authorised to
register .ie domain names in accordance with Section 32(4)(a) of the Act of 2007,
- IEDR will set up and maintain a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) representative of
all stakeholders with a focus on more transparent policy development,
- IEDR will continue to adopt the "managed approach" to .ie registrations to ensure
continued protection for .ie domain name holders and consumers,
- ComReg will implement a monitoring framework and will participate in the PAC to
keep abreast of activities in the marketplace,
- Further regulatory measures may be considered in the future, as warranted.
The Response to Consultation (ComReg Document 09/01) and the full Consultation Paper
(ComReg Document 08/48) are now available on www.comreg.ie.
What still has not been disclosed is the external consultants' report which was presented over a year ago.
I will followup with more in depth analysis of the final document, but due to its nature I need to read it carefully.
In the lead up to Nominet's AGM earlier this year I mentioned some of the squabbling.
While we may have had a respite, it's now "open season" once again.
The latest news is that some people are pushing a vote of no confidence in the current Nominet board and demanding that an EGM be called.
What exactly happened?
As usual trying to make sense of any debacles that breakout on the Nominet member lists is awkward, as a lot of the issues seem to have historical backgrounds that mere mortals struggle to comprehend (ie. I am as confused by it all as the next person)
What is known is that two things happened.
First off the board's October communique (pdf) referenced issues surrounding one of the board's non-executive directors, a Mr Jim Davies:
So what now?
I suspect that this debacle will keep growing, so the upcoming registrar conference should feature some interesting interactions between the delegates, though whether or not the current debacle will spill over into the conference proper or not remains to be seen
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f03e1058-9181-4c2c-ac0c-08d02259a7e6)
While we may have had a respite, it's now "open season" once again.
The latest news is that some people are pushing a vote of no confidence in the current Nominet board and demanding that an EGM be called.
What exactly happened?
As usual trying to make sense of any debacles that breakout on the Nominet member lists is awkward, as a lot of the issues seem to have historical backgrounds that mere mortals struggle to comprehend (ie. I am as confused by it all as the next person)
What is known is that two things happened.
First off the board's October communique (pdf) referenced issues surrounding one of the board's non-executive directors, a Mr Jim Davies:
Following a formal complaint against one of Nominet's non-executive Directors, Jim Davies, which was upheld in August 2008, the Board was disappointed to receive two more formal complaints concerning Jim Davies (who withdrew from all discussions and decisions about the complaints).Then, on 12 November, Angus Hanton, who had abstained from the votes surrounding Mr Davies, tendered his resignation from the board citing issues with how Nominet was being run and who was running it.
The first complaint was by one of our largest member/registrars, which alleged that Jim Davies had a conflict of interest and had brought the Nominet Board and company into disrepute by acting as a solicitor against them on behalf of another large member/registrar. In investigating the complaint, it emerged that Jim Davies had failed to disclose specifically - either to the Board, or to the membership prior to his election - that he had been on a retainer with the second large member/registrar since March 2008. Jim Davies stated that all relevant disclosures had been made.
The Board upheld the complaint. Angus Hanton abstained from this decision.
The second complaint was from a litigant in a domain name dispute, which alleged that Jim Davies had an interest in a contract between Nominet and a third party, and that he was in breach of his fiduciary duties to the company. In investigating this complaint, it emerged that Jim Davies had personally given a statement to the Court indicating that Nominet was in breach of contract or other duties to the third party. Jim Davies stated that all relevant disclosures had been made.
The Board upheld the complaint. Angus Hanton abstained from this decision.
The Board noted that, as advised by leading counsel, all directors have a legal duty to avoid situations of conflict and possible conflict. The Board requested that Mr Davies urgently sign written undertakings that he will not breach his duties in future.
•
The Board continued to press for Jim Davies to sign the standard Non Executive Director contract, outstanding since his election in May 2008.
•
Following the recent changes to the Companies Act, the Board reviewed a draft Conflicts of Interest Policy. The Board unanimously agreed to update the register of Directors' interests in the light of the new legislation.
So what now?
I suspect that this debacle will keep growing, so the upcoming registrar conference should feature some interesting interactions between the delegates, though whether or not the current debacle will spill over into the conference proper or not remains to be seen
The Irish Communications Regulator (Comreg) were meant to publish a document based on the public feedback they'd received regarding IEDR before the end of October.
It's now November 1st and there's no sign of it.
So what happened?
When will we see the document?
Or are we all going to be fobbed off again?
At the moment the IEDR and stakeholders are waiting in limbo.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ca660a61-0f5a-4b84-a973-da27dded5265)
It's now November 1st and there's no sign of it.
So what happened?
When will we see the document?
Or are we all going to be fobbed off again?
At the moment the IEDR and stakeholders are waiting in limbo.
The IEDR has obviously released some form of press release in the last few days to put a spin on its latest figures. Of course the press release isn't on the registry's website nor has it been sent to stakeholders yet again, though I was able to get my hands on a copy of it via a 3rd party.
So what are they trying to sell us today?
The price that the IEDR is referring to is the wholesale price NOT the retail price. The retail price is set by the registrars not the registry and for the registry to make these kind of comments about pricing is inappropriate. Other registry operators would not make comments about their registrars pricing policies, so why should the IEDR?
To claim that the price has fallen is misleading, as the fall in price / cost will only have affected the registrars not the registrants. For the registry to make allusions to pricing in this manner suggests that they are in some way influencing the retail pricing
Why must they insist on referring to themselves as "the managed registry" without ever explaining what they are managing?
Only 2.5% of IE domains are used by non-business users according to their statistics, but there is no explanation of why this is the case. There's no comparison between Ireland and other countries in this regard either.
If you were to compare IE registrations with FR registrations, for example, I somehow doubt that IE would come out looking so well. Unlike Ireland the French registry doesn't put silly barriers in the way of legitimate registrations.
The public won't understand or care what a "reseller" is in this context.
The introduction of multi-year registrations is a positive move, but the lack of multiyear renewals seriously hampers its effectiveness and causes headaches.
If the IEDR actually cared about their resellers they would actually communicate with them, but they obviously don't.
The reseller community drives registrations and basically keeps the IEDR and its staff in jobs, yet the IEDR do not care enough about the registrars / resellers to even bother sharing press releases with them - we have to find out from a 3rd party.
And of course nowhere in the press release is there any mention of Comreg, the extended registry downtime over the past few weeks or any of their inane proposals, such as the policy board that would not have any registrar representation.
So what are they trying to sell us today?
The IE Domain Registry (IEDR) today reported a 23% jump in the net number of .ie websites registered in Ireland in Q3 compared to the same period last year.There are two serious issues with that section of their statement.
The growing number of companies and sole traders moving their business operations online and choosing to do so with a .ie website is one of the main reasons for the rise, in addition to five consecutive years of price reductions by the IEDR, which has made it more affordable for businesses to do so. The cost of registering a .ie domain has fallen by over 60% since 2003.
The price that the IEDR is referring to is the wholesale price NOT the retail price. The retail price is set by the registrars not the registry and for the registry to make these kind of comments about pricing is inappropriate. Other registry operators would not make comments about their registrars pricing policies, so why should the IEDR?
To claim that the price has fallen is misleading, as the fall in price / cost will only have affected the registrars not the registrants. For the registry to make allusions to pricing in this manner suggests that they are in some way influencing the retail pricing
If the figures are official why aren't they published openly on the IEDR's site?
The latest figures from the IEDR, the managed registry for Ireland's official internet address .ie, show that new registrations were up by almost a fifth with 8,197 .ie websites registered in the period July to September 2008.
Why must they insist on referring to themselves as "the managed registry" without ever explaining what they are managing?
Based on what criteria exactly? Claiming that Ireland is "on a par" with other countries is fine, but can they actually cite any real figures to support that claim?
Registrations rose by 20.3% representing a substantial increase on figures from the same period last year, when 6,813 .ie website registrations were recorded. The increase also means the total number of .ie websites registered in Ireland now exceeds 110,000, just four months after the 100,000th barrier was broken earlier in May this year.
Of the .ie websites registered in Q3 83.3% of those were registered by corporate bodies and sole traders while personal domains blogs and other non-commercial websites, accounted for 2.5% of the registrations, placing Ireland on a par with the level of uptake recorded for other country code top level domains.
Only 2.5% of IE domains are used by non-business users according to their statistics, but there is no explanation of why this is the case. There's no comparison between Ireland and other countries in this regard either.
If you were to compare IE registrations with FR registrations, for example, I somehow doubt that IE would come out looking so well. Unlike Ireland the French registry doesn't put silly barriers in the way of legitimate registrations.
For the first time this quarter the IEDR has also made multiyear registrations available to resellers for a period of 2 - 10 years, thus enabling .ie resellers to register and secure a .ie domain for several years at a time. The IEDR plans to extend this service by Q1 by offering resellers the option of multiyear renewals.Wouldn't publishing data related to this change have been a bit more newsworthy?
The public won't understand or care what a "reseller" is in this context.
The introduction of multi-year registrations is a positive move, but the lack of multiyear renewals seriously hampers its effectiveness and causes headaches.
Commenting on the 20% rise in .ie registrations, Mr. David Curtin, Chief Executive of IE Domain Registry, said; "This has been another very strong quarter for the IEDR and one we expect to see continue into Q4, when it is predicted that the number of .ie domains registered will exceed the 115,000 mark by year end. Our reseller community, in particular, has been instrumental in driving registrations again this year and as broadband rollout and download speeds continue to improve, we expect to see more companies and SMEs, in particular, availing of .ie as a secure local online environment in which to do business".Curtin should get an award of some kind for fluffy meaningless statements.
If the IEDR actually cared about their resellers they would actually communicate with them, but they obviously don't.
The reseller community drives registrations and basically keeps the IEDR and its staff in jobs, yet the IEDR do not care enough about the registrars / resellers to even bother sharing press releases with them - we have to find out from a 3rd party.
And of course nowhere in the press release is there any mention of Comreg, the extended registry downtime over the past few weeks or any of their inane proposals, such as the policy board that would not have any registrar representation.
Image via Wikipedia
The day's agenda will cover topics such as marketing UK domains, ENUM, the future of UK domains and will include the presentation of the 2nd annual Domain Name Industry Report.
Further details and registration information is available on the Nominet site.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=bbea9869-3667-48ea-871c-73f2f267dc4a)
I've written extensively about the IE namespace and its current registry operator - IEDR in the past. While I've always tried to be fair and balanced in my coverage of the issues facing the IE namespace I'm afraid my patience with the current registry operator has worn thin.
While things may have improved over the course of the last few years it is becoming abundantly clear that the current registry operator is probably not the best organisation to manage the ccTLD in the future.
Comreg (the Irish Communications regulator) organised external consultants to conduct a comprehensive review of the IEDR's operations at every level. Although the report was submitted to Comreg before Christmas 2007 it still has not been published and is unlikely to see the light of day at this juncture.
More recently Comreg requested feedback based on the unpublished report's points (the logic behind this kind of thing escapes mere mortals, so you're not alone if you thought that was a weird thing to do!), yet nothing has been published.
Of course Comreg's track record in terms or regulating the various industries within its remit hasn't exactly been stellar, so maybe we shouldn't be so surprised.
So what is the current situation in IE?
If you were to rely on their annual report for that kind of information you'd probably end up with a rather twisted version of events.
At present there is no policy development process within IE.
While policy can change there is no clear way for stakeholders to propose changes or follow their development.
If a policy proposal is made and in many cases this appears to be provoked by something "upsetting" the registry operator, then the IEDR may pay lip service to consulting stakeholders. However consultation in their eyes and consultation for everyone else are often at odds with each other.
One recent change that has had a very negative impact on stakeholders was the registry's unilateral decision to practically do away with "conditional acceptances". That a domain could be "provisionally accepted" in the first place is a reflection of the archaic and unwieldy rules and procedures in place.
If you query how things operate you are most likely to get a rather inane response about how things have always been that way or that nobody "considered" a particular issue to be important enough to deal with.
Most of the ccTLD's registration rules are ambigous and open to subjectivity.
Since the "awarding" of a domain name relies almost entirely on the registry's staff subjective interpretation of the policies the end result is that prospective registrants and registrars are constantly locked in an unending game of "Russian roulette", though in many respects it's even worse, as you don't know how many chambers have been loaded.
In this kind of environment, with vague rules and no policy development, the incumbent registry operator now wants to introduce even more bureaucracy.
According to a small note in their most recent newsletter they intend to introduce an "appeals process":
The IEDR will shortly begin a consultation with the local internet community on the formation of a formal appeals process.
This formal appeals process would allow persons to:
a) appeal the IEDR's decision to reject an application for a new .ie domain name
b) appeal an already registered domain name
c) appeal the suspension or deletion of a .ie domain name
We will be circulating a consultation document for your consideration over the coming days
Eventually the IEDR provided more information on their proposal:
The IEDR would like to receive your views on the formation of a formal appeals process.
This formal appeals process would allow persons to:
a) appeal the IEDR's decision to reject an application for a new .ie domain name
b) appeal an already registered domain name
c) appeal the suspension or deletion of a .ie domain name
We would like to suggest adopting a two stage approach to the process. The purpose of this
approach is to reduce the number of inquiries escalated to a formal appeal and minimise the costs incurred by the appellant and/or the registry. The first stage of this approach would involve the IEDR being given the opportunity to review the appeal internally and respond. Our aim is to address the appellants' issue wherever possible at this stage, however if this is not possible or the appellant remains dissatisfied with our response they could then choose to initiate the second stage of process by opening a formal appeal which would be brought before an expert/panel of experts for a decision.
Currently, the IEDR receive very few appeals and do not feel that the introduction of a formal
process should increase the number received in any way (see (1) below). The purpose of this
consultation is to ensure that the formal process is structured to reflect the needs and
considerations of the local internet community.
While the idea behind this is obviously inspired by the Nominet DRS and similar solutions there is no way to easily transplant that kinf of sytem into the IE namespace. Other ccTLDs are much more member-driven ie. the stakeholders have some say in how the organisation is developed and run (AFNIC, Nominet, DENIC etc.,) while IEDR is a private company with zero accountability. The lack of clear and unambiguous rules and processes mean that both registrants (end users) and companies fulfilling the registrar role (there is no such role currently defined) face a very high degree of uncertainty. If any appeals process were to be introduced it would be a fiasco.
Fundamentally the IE namespace is in serious trouble.
The organisation currently in charge of managing the namespace may have muddled along for the last few years, but it is showing itself to be severely lacking on both technical and non-technical aspects of the ccTLD's management.
The archaic rules and procedures are stifling development not only of the namespace but of online business in Ireland.
This morning, for example, all public facing web services related to the IE namespace were completely unavailable for a period of approximately two hours. During this period whois, the API and all other web services were completely unavailable.
At no time did the registry make any effort to contact its registrars to explain the downtime and when an "explanation" was finally provided it was incredibly vague and unhelpful. A gTLD registry operator has to meet SLA requirements. Why doesn't this kind of thing exist for a ccTLD?
For a ccTLD registry in a developed country this kind of technical ineptitude is worrying.
So what could, or should, be done?
The main area of contention is in regard to the rules and regulations. At present those rules and regulations are not helping anyone, least of all the user community that the ccTLD is meant to serve. It would make a lot more sense to do away with all registration restrictions apart from maybe an admin contact address restriction.
The IEDR has long argued that its position as a "managed" registry gave it certain advantages, however most registrants do not gain any tangible benefits from these supposed advantages.
With simpler rules there would be less manual intervention required by both the registry operator and the registrars which would improve the turnaround time on new registrations and also help reduce the cost to end users significantly (the average cost at present is approx 25-30 euro before sales tax). The cost that end users pay for a domain registration will always be affected by the amount of manual intervention (if any) that the registrar's staff has to make to get a domain registered and / or manage it on an ongoing basis.
The other area that needs to be addressed urgently is the total lack of properly defined relations between the registry, registrar and registrant. At present there are no official "registrars", as the IEDR has not drafted any form of registrar contract. This puts all three sides in a legal minefield and issues can and will arise, although querying this sort of legal issue with the registry will not get a favourable response.
Maybe things will change dramatically if and when Comreg publish their report, however if they don't then maybe it is time that the management of the registry be put up for public tender or simply redelegated entirely.
While things may have improved over the course of the last few years it is becoming abundantly clear that the current registry operator is probably not the best organisation to manage the ccTLD in the future.
Comreg (the Irish Communications regulator) organised external consultants to conduct a comprehensive review of the IEDR's operations at every level. Although the report was submitted to Comreg before Christmas 2007 it still has not been published and is unlikely to see the light of day at this juncture.
More recently Comreg requested feedback based on the unpublished report's points (the logic behind this kind of thing escapes mere mortals, so you're not alone if you thought that was a weird thing to do!), yet nothing has been published.
Of course Comreg's track record in terms or regulating the various industries within its remit hasn't exactly been stellar, so maybe we shouldn't be so surprised.
So what is the current situation in IE?
If you were to rely on their annual report for that kind of information you'd probably end up with a rather twisted version of events.
At present there is no policy development process within IE.
While policy can change there is no clear way for stakeholders to propose changes or follow their development.
If a policy proposal is made and in many cases this appears to be provoked by something "upsetting" the registry operator, then the IEDR may pay lip service to consulting stakeholders. However consultation in their eyes and consultation for everyone else are often at odds with each other.
One recent change that has had a very negative impact on stakeholders was the registry's unilateral decision to practically do away with "conditional acceptances". That a domain could be "provisionally accepted" in the first place is a reflection of the archaic and unwieldy rules and procedures in place.
If you query how things operate you are most likely to get a rather inane response about how things have always been that way or that nobody "considered" a particular issue to be important enough to deal with.
Most of the ccTLD's registration rules are ambigous and open to subjectivity.
Since the "awarding" of a domain name relies almost entirely on the registry's staff subjective interpretation of the policies the end result is that prospective registrants and registrars are constantly locked in an unending game of "Russian roulette", though in many respects it's even worse, as you don't know how many chambers have been loaded.
In this kind of environment, with vague rules and no policy development, the incumbent registry operator now wants to introduce even more bureaucracy.
According to a small note in their most recent newsletter they intend to introduce an "appeals process":
The IEDR will shortly begin a consultation with the local internet community on the formation of a formal appeals process.
This formal appeals process would allow persons to:
a) appeal the IEDR's decision to reject an application for a new .ie domain name
b) appeal an already registered domain name
c) appeal the suspension or deletion of a .ie domain name
We will be circulating a consultation document for your consideration over the coming days
Eventually the IEDR provided more information on their proposal:
The IEDR would like to receive your views on the formation of a formal appeals process.
This formal appeals process would allow persons to:
a) appeal the IEDR's decision to reject an application for a new .ie domain name
b) appeal an already registered domain name
c) appeal the suspension or deletion of a .ie domain name
We would like to suggest adopting a two stage approach to the process. The purpose of this
approach is to reduce the number of inquiries escalated to a formal appeal and minimise the costs incurred by the appellant and/or the registry. The first stage of this approach would involve the IEDR being given the opportunity to review the appeal internally and respond. Our aim is to address the appellants' issue wherever possible at this stage, however if this is not possible or the appellant remains dissatisfied with our response they could then choose to initiate the second stage of process by opening a formal appeal which would be brought before an expert/panel of experts for a decision.
Currently, the IEDR receive very few appeals and do not feel that the introduction of a formal
process should increase the number received in any way (see (1) below). The purpose of this
consultation is to ensure that the formal process is structured to reflect the needs and
considerations of the local internet community.
While the idea behind this is obviously inspired by the Nominet DRS and similar solutions there is no way to easily transplant that kinf of sytem into the IE namespace. Other ccTLDs are much more member-driven ie. the stakeholders have some say in how the organisation is developed and run (AFNIC, Nominet, DENIC etc.,) while IEDR is a private company with zero accountability. The lack of clear and unambiguous rules and processes mean that both registrants (end users) and companies fulfilling the registrar role (there is no such role currently defined) face a very high degree of uncertainty. If any appeals process were to be introduced it would be a fiasco.
Fundamentally the IE namespace is in serious trouble.
The organisation currently in charge of managing the namespace may have muddled along for the last few years, but it is showing itself to be severely lacking on both technical and non-technical aspects of the ccTLD's management.
The archaic rules and procedures are stifling development not only of the namespace but of online business in Ireland.
This morning, for example, all public facing web services related to the IE namespace were completely unavailable for a period of approximately two hours. During this period whois, the API and all other web services were completely unavailable.
At no time did the registry make any effort to contact its registrars to explain the downtime and when an "explanation" was finally provided it was incredibly vague and unhelpful. A gTLD registry operator has to meet SLA requirements. Why doesn't this kind of thing exist for a ccTLD?
For a ccTLD registry in a developed country this kind of technical ineptitude is worrying.
So what could, or should, be done?
The main area of contention is in regard to the rules and regulations. At present those rules and regulations are not helping anyone, least of all the user community that the ccTLD is meant to serve. It would make a lot more sense to do away with all registration restrictions apart from maybe an admin contact address restriction.
The IEDR has long argued that its position as a "managed" registry gave it certain advantages, however most registrants do not gain any tangible benefits from these supposed advantages.
With simpler rules there would be less manual intervention required by both the registry operator and the registrars which would improve the turnaround time on new registrations and also help reduce the cost to end users significantly (the average cost at present is approx 25-30 euro before sales tax). The cost that end users pay for a domain registration will always be affected by the amount of manual intervention (if any) that the registrar's staff has to make to get a domain registered and / or manage it on an ongoing basis.
The other area that needs to be addressed urgently is the total lack of properly defined relations between the registry, registrar and registrant. At present there are no official "registrars", as the IEDR has not drafted any form of registrar contract. This puts all three sides in a legal minefield and issues can and will arise, although querying this sort of legal issue with the registry will not get a favourable response.
Maybe things will change dramatically if and when Comreg publish their report, however if they don't then maybe it is time that the management of the registry be put up for public tender or simply redelegated entirely.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ae00565c-396a-4284-8b35-b119f30a9779)
Image via Wikipedia
While a lot of ccTLDs are dropping their wholesale rates others are raising them (or have raised them).
The problem, as Liu points out, is that registrants aren't consulted about the price hikes or given any other options for their existing domains. End result. They either "bite the bullet" on the new pricing or simply let their domains expire.
Of course, if the price increase were only a matter of a couple of dollars it wouldn't be much of an issue. You could argue that a price increase might bring a better level of service of stability to registrants and registrars alike.
But what about price increases of several hundred percent?
Is that reasonable?
Liu has contacted ICANN about the situation, but I doubt that this will have much impact, as ICANN's role in relation to ccTLDs is very different compared to its role (and mandate) with respect to gTLDs. Of course I could be completely mistaken...
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5591b800-ac8f-43c2-b9ee-1d3caf6d2455)
The IEDR, which is in charge of the IE namespace, is looking for staff.
The position on offer is "team leader" in "registration services"
Full details are available from David Curtin, IEDR's CEO (david.curtin at iedr.ie)
The position on offer is "team leader" in "registration services"
Full details are available from David Curtin, IEDR's CEO (david.curtin at iedr.ie)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9f2c533d-b95d-4e29-b2dd-60d673a11fe9)
The Spanish domain registry (.es) is planning to introduce multi-year registrations.
Although an exact date has not been announced the change is expected to come into effect during October.
A number of the ccTLD registries in Europe have either introduced multi-year registrations or are in the process of making changes to the registration periods available.
The IE ccTLD introduced registration periods of up to 10 years in recent weeks.
Although an exact date has not been announced the change is expected to come into effect during October.
A number of the ccTLD registries in Europe have either introduced multi-year registrations or are in the process of making changes to the registration periods available.
The IE ccTLD introduced registration periods of up to 10 years in recent weeks.
David Curtin, IEDR CEO, was interviewed during the week by Sunday Business Post's technology editor Adrian Weckler
The full interview is available online.
Some of the questions posed by Weckler revealed some of the more awkward and restrictive views of the registry, including its policy on censoring domain names.
However it is interesting to note that Curtin not only made public reference to setting up a policy advisory board, but also mentioned the registry's plans to introduce support for IDN's (finally!).
Some of the answers, however, are amusing.
Curtin seems to believe that people register larger volumes of domains in .com as they are afraid of "cybersquatting".
While this may be true of large corporates it is most definitely not the case with Irish SMEs. Most Irish SME users register theircompanyname.com and possibly theircompanyname.ie. They won't register derivatives or typos unless someone tells them to.
The fact that so many people still opt for a .com over a .ie cannot be explained away by referring to Curtin's favourite bogeyman dotCom (he's taken to referring to them as a competitor).
Basic fact:
IE domains cost at least two, if not three to four times, more to register than a .com.
The average cost of registering an IE domain is approximately 40 euro per annum, if you average the price across the largest vendors.
The average cost of registering a .com domain is approximately 8 euro.
The cost of registering a domain name is directly related to the level of automation possible. Since IEDR's systems still rely heavily on human intervention both at the registry and registrar (reseller) level real competition with doteu and dotcom is not a viable proposition at this juncture.
An average SME that does not conduct a large portion of its business online may want email and an online presence, but probably won't want to spend more on the domain than they have to.
The supposed added value of a dotIE is primarily of interest to large corporates. Smaller business is not as concerned with trademark issues as some people would like to make out.
If the registry wanted to seriously increase the number of IE registrations they need to invest some of their surplus in marketing, PR and possibly co-marketing with their stakeholders.
The full interview is available online.
Some of the questions posed by Weckler revealed some of the more awkward and restrictive views of the registry, including its policy on censoring domain names.
However it is interesting to note that Curtin not only made public reference to setting up a policy advisory board, but also mentioned the registry's plans to introduce support for IDN's (finally!).
Some of the answers, however, are amusing.
Curtin seems to believe that people register larger volumes of domains in .com as they are afraid of "cybersquatting".
While this may be true of large corporates it is most definitely not the case with Irish SMEs. Most Irish SME users register theircompanyname.com and possibly theircompanyname.ie. They won't register derivatives or typos unless someone tells them to.
The fact that so many people still opt for a .com over a .ie cannot be explained away by referring to Curtin's favourite bogeyman dotCom (he's taken to referring to them as a competitor).
Basic fact:
IE domains cost at least two, if not three to four times, more to register than a .com.
The average cost of registering an IE domain is approximately 40 euro per annum, if you average the price across the largest vendors.
The average cost of registering a .com domain is approximately 8 euro.
The cost of registering a domain name is directly related to the level of automation possible. Since IEDR's systems still rely heavily on human intervention both at the registry and registrar (reseller) level real competition with doteu and dotcom is not a viable proposition at this juncture.
An average SME that does not conduct a large portion of its business online may want email and an online presence, but probably won't want to spend more on the domain than they have to.
The supposed added value of a dotIE is primarily of interest to large corporates. Smaller business is not as concerned with trademark issues as some people would like to make out.
If the registry wanted to seriously increase the number of IE registrations they need to invest some of their surplus in marketing, PR and possibly co-marketing with their stakeholders.
Frank mentions that the Dutch registry (SIDN) has reached the 3 million names mark.
The IEDR's annual report for 2007 has been published (
IEDRAnnualReport2007.pdf )
Of course they didn't bother telling any of their stakeholders that it had been released, but we're more or less used to their lack of communication at this stage, as they prefer to tell the media!
In any case with the current Comreg public consultation ongoing the report was bound to make at least a passing reference to the regulatory changes.
The introductory section did not disappoint:
It then continues:
Other parts of the report deal with the company's retained profits. Similar to Nominet and other ccTLD registries the IE Domain Registry does not have any financial issues.
It's unfortunate that the bulk of the annual report was drafted prior to the recent ICANN meeting, as it would have been interesting to see what kind of comment they'd have made on the new TLDs.
When it comes down to the actual figures involved there are few surprises, though how the figures are framed is questionable at times. The reliance on webhosting.info's statistics, for example, is quite disappointing. The assumptions about registrant density are also quite odd, as only a portion of a ccTLD's registrants would actually reside in that country. This is of particular importance if you wish to examine the registrant makeup in *.uk for example, which has a very open registration policy. It would have been a lot more interesting to see a report similar to that produced by AFNIC last year.
The cost of IE domains to resellers has been dropping, but sales figures and turnover has been increasing.
Of course the report doesn't make it clear that not all resellers will pass on savings to users, so certain assumptions and gaps in the report may lead readers to get a slightly different persective.
The introduction of "personal" IE domains gave a boost to registration figures for 2007. That's hardly surprising really.
But what about the antiquated and ambiguous policies that the registry still enforces?
The IEDR's David Curtin is a stalwart defender of some of their views, which seem to be at odds to those of other ccTLD managers.
For example the lack of a formal aftermarket in IE domains would be seen as quite negative by many industry observers, whereas Curtin seems to view this in a positive, yet incredibly naive and misinformed light:
One of the "unique selling points" of the IE namespace is its supposedly higher level of security:
Update: Now linking to a local copy of the IEDR's report as the link on their site seems to have been removed
IEDRAnnualReport2007.pdf )
Of course they didn't bother telling any of their stakeholders that it had been released, but we're more or less used to their lack of communication at this stage, as they prefer to tell the media!
In any case with the current Comreg public consultation ongoing the report was bound to make at least a passing reference to the regulatory changes.
The introductory section did not disappoint:
As a result of the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007, regulation of the .ie namespace passes from the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to ComReg, which is empowered, subject to consultation with the relevant Ministers and the approval of the Oireachtas, to issue regulations over a range of operational and other matters in relation to .ie.
It then continues:
Our international competitors, .com and .eu etc., are not subject to the Act or to ComReg regulation. So we have a concern, which we expect ComReg would share, that the impact of regulation should not militate against the continued growth and development of .ie.They conveniently ignore that .eu is answerable to the European Union, which is a lot more onerous than any national body.
Other parts of the report deal with the company's retained profits. Similar to Nominet and other ccTLD registries the IE Domain Registry does not have any financial issues.
It's unfortunate that the bulk of the annual report was drafted prior to the recent ICANN meeting, as it would have been interesting to see what kind of comment they'd have made on the new TLDs.
When it comes down to the actual figures involved there are few surprises, though how the figures are framed is questionable at times. The reliance on webhosting.info's statistics, for example, is quite disappointing. The assumptions about registrant density are also quite odd, as only a portion of a ccTLD's registrants would actually reside in that country. This is of particular importance if you wish to examine the registrant makeup in *.uk for example, which has a very open registration policy. It would have been a lot more interesting to see a report similar to that produced by AFNIC last year.
The cost of IE domains to resellers has been dropping, but sales figures and turnover has been increasing.
Of course the report doesn't make it clear that not all resellers will pass on savings to users, so certain assumptions and gaps in the report may lead readers to get a slightly different persective.
The introduction of "personal" IE domains gave a boost to registration figures for 2007. That's hardly surprising really.
But what about the antiquated and ambiguous policies that the registry still enforces?
The IEDR's David Curtin is a stalwart defender of some of their views, which seem to be at odds to those of other ccTLD managers.
For example the lack of a formal aftermarket in IE domains would be seen as quite negative by many industry observers, whereas Curtin seems to view this in a positive, yet incredibly naive and misinformed light:
...there is no formal secondary market for .ie domains, therefore the problem ofA healthy secondary market does not have to involve "poaching" of domain names and I'm amazed that a man of his intelligence would make such a comment. That's almost like saying that selling property to the highest bidder should be illegal.
poaching of domains and holding them to ransom is not an issue...
One of the "unique selling points" of the IE namespace is its supposedly higher level of security:
Other countries that made different choices regarding the type of ccTLD RegistryIt will be interesting to see if any of the media do more than simply recycle the press release.
are now facing the challenges of costly intellectual property disputes, identity theft, phishing, cybercrime and credit card fraud.
Update: Now linking to a local copy of the IEDR's report as the link on their site seems to have been removed
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6ce597a9-dd32-4373-b676-83ab3679f7c5)
Anti-virus vendor McAfee have released their second report on Malware (pdf) which tracks incidences of malware on a TLD basis.
The previous report, which received a lot of press coverage, was very favourable for several ccTLDs, including .ie (Ireland).
This time round the Irish ccTLD may not be listed in the "dangerous" list, but the threat levels have practically doubled!
This year's report also includes data on .eu, which is showing that over 2% of EU sites are dangerous.
However those figures pale in comparison to the 19% risk rate of .hk (Hong Kong) or the 11% of .cn (China).
With such a high incidence of risk concentrated in the Asia-Pacific region the new dotAsia TLD will have its work cut out, or risk being flagged in a similar manner to .info (11.7% risk)
More coverage over on the excellent Domain Name News site
The previous report, which received a lot of press coverage, was very favourable for several ccTLDs, including .ie (Ireland).
This time round the Irish ccTLD may not be listed in the "dangerous" list, but the threat levels have practically doubled!
This year's report also includes data on .eu, which is showing that over 2% of EU sites are dangerous.
However those figures pale in comparison to the 19% risk rate of .hk (Hong Kong) or the 11% of .cn (China).
With such a high incidence of risk concentrated in the Asia-Pacific region the new dotAsia TLD will have its work cut out, or risk being flagged in a similar manner to .info (11.7% risk)
More coverage over on the excellent Domain Name News site
Feed Subscription
If you use an RSS reader, you can subscribe to a feed of all future entries tagged “cctld”.
Recent Comments