Entries tagged with “comreg” from Domains / Internet Technology News - DNS News
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
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.
Remember Comreg?
Remember the famous IEDR report?
It's now the 18th of December, which means that civil servants will soon be shutting up shop until the New Year.
And still we have no inkling as to the outcome of Comreg's investigations into the IE Domain Registry, the company currently charged with managing the Irish ccTLD.
Over 12 months ago the external consultants presented their report to Comreg and in turn this was shared with the registry. Unfortunately, citing concerns with privacy, security and business information, Comreg did not deem it necessary to share that report either with the public or stakeholders.
Months passed and then in June of this year Comreg finally opened up their consultation with the public.
That consultation period closed back at the beginning of August, but they are yet to actually publish anything.
How long does it take to put together a report?
Until such time as Comreg actually publish their report both the IEDR and stakeholders alike are going to be left in Limbo.
Remember the famous IEDR report?
It's now the 18th of December, which means that civil servants will soon be shutting up shop until the New Year.
And still we have no inkling as to the outcome of Comreg's investigations into the IE Domain Registry, the company currently charged with managing the Irish ccTLD.
Over 12 months ago the external consultants presented their report to Comreg and in turn this was shared with the registry. Unfortunately, citing concerns with privacy, security and business information, Comreg did not deem it necessary to share that report either with the public or stakeholders.
Months passed and then in June of this year Comreg finally opened up their consultation with the public.
That consultation period closed back at the beginning of August, but they are yet to actually publish anything.
How long does it take to put together a report?
Until such time as Comreg actually publish their report both the IEDR and stakeholders alike are going to be left in Limbo.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=842a63e2-685a-4a88-9e93-59f1fb721921)
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'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)
Comreg, the Irish communications regulator, is starting a consultation process on the IE namespace.
The consultation paper is ComReg 08/48.
Unfortunately any links on the ComReg site to the aforementioned document are returning a 404 (not found) error at present, so it will probably be Monday before we will be able to see the document's contents.
EDIT: The links are now working again and the document is now available. In case it goes AWOL again I've made a copy available here as well:
ComReg0848.pdf
The consultation paper is ComReg 08/48.
Unfortunately any links on the ComReg site to the aforementioned document are returning a 404 (not found) error at present, so it will probably be Monday before we will be able to see the document's contents.
EDIT: The links are now working again and the document is now available. In case it goes AWOL again I've made a copy available here as well:
ComReg0848.pdf
Feed Subscription
If you use an RSS reader, you can subscribe to a feed of all future entries tagged “comreg”.
Recent Comments