Entries tagged with “domains” from Domains / Internet Technology News - DNS News
Eurid, the registry operator for .eu, will be signing the .eu zone from tomorrow at 10am Central European Time.
They expect that the full signing of the zone will take about two hours to complete.
The ICANN Board's statement on vertical integration at Nairobi has left pretty much everyone in an awkward position.
Either it is:
- a masterful move by the board
- or an act of madness
I'd hope it was the masterful move, as it essentially forces everyone to reach a consensus. Failure to do so will have a negative impact on both registrars and registries, as nobody can really "win' in the post-Nairobi world.
The Board's statement is still being debated, but on the face of it they are blocking any form of relationship between registries and registrars:
5. New gTLDs Implementation – Vertical Integration
Whereas, decisions about industry structure affect many aspects of the public interest – prices, service offerings, sources and uses of data, and more;
Whereas, ICANN has obtained several studies, and heard from Industry participants about the possible benefits and detriments of choices related to ownership integration or non-integration;\
Whereas, the market for new gTLDs will be dynamic, and has yet to emerge. In particular, there are concerns about how industry structure could affect consumer data protection;
Whereas, the GNSO is in an active policy development process on the issue of Vertical Integration, and the Board does not want to create an environment in which it would be difficult to later harmonize the new gTLD marketplace with the GNSO policy result; and
Whereas, it is important to establish a baseline approach to registry-registrar separation for the new gTLD process to move ahead.
Resolved (2010.03.12.17), within the context of the new gTLD process, there will be strict separation of entities offering registry services and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed.
Resolved (2010.03.12.18), if a policy becomes available from the GNSO, and approved by the Board prior to the launch of the new gTLD program, that policy will be considered by the Board for adoption as part of the New gTLD Program.
The second last line includes an incredibly vague reference to "registry services" without offering any definition. So is providing DNS to a registry covered? What about if I buy shares in a company that already owns shares in another company? Where do you draw the line?
The last sentence is the "opening", but based on the interactions on the mailing list so far I'd suspect that there will be a lot of squabbling ..
Hopefully, however, there will be some progress, as it is now an issue of importance to a lot of parties
Like so many other industries, the domain industry has a plethora of events every year.
Keeping track of all to them can be a chore, so a site worth bookmarking is Domain Name Calendar, which gives a fairly comprehensive listing of domain industry events. It's run by the same people who are behind Domain Name News
Nice work!
Keeping track of all to them can be a chore, so a site worth bookmarking is Domain Name Calendar, which gives a fairly comprehensive listing of domain industry events. It's run by the same people who are behind Domain Name News
Nice work!
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 .. )
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5e276b81-1ccc-4001-9056-5d3cc0782d74)
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 .. )
The "go live" for .cm has been announced (again!)
This time round the date and time are:
September 18, 2009 at 08:00am UTC
According to an email sent out earlier this morning Netcom, who run .cm, have moved the registry platform outside COCCA and are running their own version. Whether they have managed to resolve the stability issues that were of concern to COCCA is not clear.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ee19bb01-091e-4133-b834-47d9e429628e)
This time round the date and time are:
September 18, 2009 at 08:00am UTC
According to an email sent out earlier this morning Netcom, who run .cm, have moved the registry platform outside COCCA and are running their own version. Whether they have managed to resolve the stability issues that were of concern to COCCA is not clear.
Blacknight, which I founded, has launched a new site to help end users get to grips with the "new domains" ie. the new TLD project.
If anyone has any feedback or would like to assist please let us know:
marketing [at] blacknight.com
If anyone has any feedback or would like to assist please let us know:
marketing [at] blacknight.com
ICANN has announced that three more registrars have lost their accreditation due to non-compliance with the RAA.
The three registrars have been informed that their agreements with ICANN will not be renewed.
South American Domains (NameFrog), Simply Named and Tahoe Domains have been sent letters by ICANN outlining the decision and the reasons for it.
So what now?
On the plus side, as ICANN's compliance team is becoming more active in pursuing non-compliant registrars the processes for handling the domains held by de-accredited registrars is becoming more finely tuned.
Expect to see an announcement very shortly asking for other registrars to takeover the various portfolios, though this time round they are incredibly small.
According to the latest figures I was able to access the breakdown would be as follows:
The three registrars have been informed that their agreements with ICANN will not be renewed.
South American Domains (NameFrog), Simply Named and Tahoe Domains have been sent letters by ICANN outlining the decision and the reasons for it.
So what now?
On the plus side, as ICANN's compliance team is becoming more active in pursuing non-compliant registrars the processes for handling the domains held by de-accredited registrars is becoming more finely tuned.
Expect to see an announcement very shortly asking for other registrars to takeover the various portfolios, though this time round they are incredibly small.
According to the latest figures I was able to access the breakdown would be as follows:
- Namefrog appears to have less than 300 gTLD domains
- Simply Named about the same number
- Tahoe less than 250
- Namefrog did not have a whois server
- Simply Named wasn't escrowing registrant data and hadn't paid their ICANN fees
- Tahoe no data escrow and owed fees to ICANN
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
ICANN is looking for public feedback and comment on a proposed policy / process for disqualifying registrars.
The idea behind the process is to put in place a policy to deal with "bad actors", however in its current form the document is far from ready.
You can download the document here (pdf) and see existing comments here.
The idea behind the process is to put in place a policy to deal with "bad actors", however in its current form the document is far from ready.
You can download the document here (pdf) and see existing comments here.
The guys over on Domain Name News had quite an amusing story earlier today.
It transpires that the Hollywood Renaissance let their domain lapse!
With the Renaissance playing host to DomainFest this week the timing couldn't have been worse!
It transpires that the Hollywood Renaissance let their domain lapse!
With the Renaissance playing host to DomainFest this week the timing couldn't have been worse!
Image via CrunchBase, source unknown
Could this be the end for some of the smaller parking companies?
With Google's ever growing publisher base I suspect that some of the parking companies are going to be under pressure. Unless they can bring something new and interesting to their clients some of them may not survive such a move intact (I'm thinking mergers etc.,)
While the big companies such as Oversee and Sedo have a diversified portfolio of both web properties and revenue sources, what about some of the smaller players? With Google for domains being offered via the Adsense control panel it may be all too easy for publishers to simply move their domains onto that system and get a single monthly payment from Google instead of dealing with multiple, smaller, payments that incur higher banking charges.
Of course it's early days yet, so the actual impact of this kind of change may not be felt for a few months.
Thanks to the guys over on DomainNameNews for mentioning it
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a3a2b618-02ff-48ad-84a0-3d7de8232b19)
I don't check the RegisterFly website that often, so I've no idea when they "rebranded"
The most obvious difference is subtle:
has become:
Not that big a difference admittedly, but still you'd have to ask what they're playing at.
Back when RegisterFly was still RegisterFly the emails they sent out were a lot less dodgy as they included tangible contact details in the email footer AND on the website.
Now, in the latter half of 2008, all you get is a link to the website and if there are proper contact details there I had issues locating them this morning.
But what drives them to do this minor rebrand?
If they wanted to shake off the old name then why not do it cleanly?
Ours is not to reason why I guess ....
The most obvious difference is subtle:
has become:Not that big a difference admittedly, but still you'd have to ask what they're playing at.Back when RegisterFly was still RegisterFly the emails they sent out were a lot less dodgy as they included tangible contact details in the email footer AND on the website.
Now, in the latter half of 2008, all you get is a link to the website and if there are proper contact details there I had issues locating them this morning.
But what drives them to do this minor rebrand?
If they wanted to shake off the old name then why not do it cleanly?
Ours is not to reason why I guess ....
Over the last year ICANN has sought expressions of interest a number of times from accredited registrars to take over the domain portfolios of registrars that have lost their accreditation.
The most recent bulk transfer was of Esoftwiz's names to Name.com
While Name.com will contact former Esoftwiz clients it's always hard to know how accurate the contact information is going to be, so any Esoftwiz clients should contact Name.com to be on the safe side.
The most recent bulk transfer was of Esoftwiz's names to Name.com
While Name.com will contact former Esoftwiz clients it's always hard to know how accurate the contact information is going to be, so any Esoftwiz clients should contact Name.com to be on the safe side.
As the countdown towards launch day for .tel comes closer Telnic is ramping up its activities.
This morning Telnic are officially launching their developer centre, which offers a number of applications, source code and documentation to help developers build on the .tel platform.
I've mentioned .tel a couple of times in the past. Personally I think it could herald a revolution in the way people interact with other people. If it takes off then your address book will never be quite the same again!
In the meantime you can head over to the Telnic Developer Area and play around with some of the demo applications they've made available for Blackberry, iPhone, Windows Mobile and Outlook. Unfortunately no Mac software is available at present, though Telnic have assured me that they're working on something...
Since I don't have a Blackberry or an iPhone here is a screenshot of the Blackberry application in action:
This morning Telnic are officially launching their developer centre, which offers a number of applications, source code and documentation to help developers build on the .tel platform.
I've mentioned .tel a couple of times in the past. Personally I think it could herald a revolution in the way people interact with other people. If it takes off then your address book will never be quite the same again!
In the meantime you can head over to the Telnic Developer Area and play around with some of the demo applications they've made available for Blackberry, iPhone, Windows Mobile and Outlook. Unfortunately no Mac software is available at present, though Telnic have assured me that they're working on something...
Since I don't have a Blackberry or an iPhone here is a screenshot of the Blackberry application in action:
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ffaa1513-303d-4e0c-a17e-43e78434f0d1)
Nominet does not charge registrars anything to retag a domain name (ie. release the domain to another registrar / provider) .
I've mentioned this previously, but I wasn't expecting to hear about this kind of money grabbing from companies operating out of Ireland.
Unfortunately the acquisition of Register365 by Names.co.uk (part of the Dada group) means that anyone who is unfortunate enough to have co.uk domains with register365 is going to be held to ransom.
Names.co.uk have a public price list, although it's buried in the "legal" section of their site for some odd reason.
There's no mention of these prices or practices on the Register365 site, so I was very surprised when I was sent an email by one of their clients with a screen shot showing evidence of this:
If you don't want to click on the image to see it.. the price being charged for something that takes only seconds and doesn't cost anything is £10 + VAT or €12.49 +VAT!!!
Madness!
If you want to move your domains to another Nominet tag holder you shouldn't have your domain held to ransom!
Nominet can retag domains for registrants. How much do they charge?
£11.75 including VAT, and that is regardless of the number of domains.
So if you wanted to move 1 *.uk domain to a new registrar or 1000 the only fee that Nominet would levy a registrant directly (via the online service system which would get it all done in a matter of seconds anyway ...) is £11.75 including VAT (less than €15 including VAT)
Disclosure: Yes. I do run a Nominet registrar and no we don't charge for retagging co.uk domains as we don't get charged by Nominet.
Update: Wanted to verify with Nominet if there was a limit on the number of domains that could be retagged via the online service for the £11.75 fee and was informed that there was NO limit, as long as they were all merged onto the one online account.
I've mentioned this previously, but I wasn't expecting to hear about this kind of money grabbing from companies operating out of Ireland.
Unfortunately the acquisition of Register365 by Names.co.uk (part of the Dada group) means that anyone who is unfortunate enough to have co.uk domains with register365 is going to be held to ransom.
Names.co.uk have a public price list, although it's buried in the "legal" section of their site for some odd reason.
There's no mention of these prices or practices on the Register365 site, so I was very surprised when I was sent an email by one of their clients with a screen shot showing evidence of this:
If you don't want to click on the image to see it.. the price being charged for something that takes only seconds and doesn't cost anything is £10 + VAT or €12.49 +VAT!!!Madness!
If you want to move your domains to another Nominet tag holder you shouldn't have your domain held to ransom!
Nominet can retag domains for registrants. How much do they charge?
£11.75 including VAT, and that is regardless of the number of domains.
So if you wanted to move 1 *.uk domain to a new registrar or 1000 the only fee that Nominet would levy a registrant directly (via the online service system which would get it all done in a matter of seconds anyway ...) is £11.75 including VAT (less than €15 including VAT)
Disclosure: Yes. I do run a Nominet registrar and no we don't charge for retagging co.uk domains as we don't get charged by Nominet.
Update: Wanted to verify with Nominet if there was a limit on the number of domains that could be retagged via the online service for the £11.75 fee and was informed that there was NO limit, as long as they were all merged onto the one online account.
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)
Moniker has launched a new service to help domain holders protect their domains from hijacking and other issues.Maxlock, which retails at $59.95 per domain per year is aimed at offering domain holder peace of mind, as very stringent security checks are used to validate account changes:
Unauthorized transfers - often times a result of shared accounts, employee errors, high-jacked email accounts, automated transfers or pushes by domain marketplace distribution networks - represent a significant risk to businesses and can cause substantial damage to business operations and revenue
MaxLock presents a robust and effective solution to this ongoing challenge in online business. Unlike a standard registrar lock, with MaxLockTM, domain assets cannot be transferred or pushed to another account without a thorough off-line validation and account verification process performed by the Moniker security team.
Monte Cahn, head of Oversee's Aftermarket and Registrar Division, said the division will continue to emphasize development of products and services that give domain registrants, buyers and sellers the confidence to bring business to Oversee. "Safety for domain assets is critical, and MaxLockTM is the best service available for anyone who wants iron-clad protection for their names," he said. "Over time, Oversee's companies will continue to make available the tools anyone involved in the industry needs to conduct business efficiently and safely."
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=122b73a9-74c4-457a-ad50-0c05fbe548da)
ICANN meetings are meant to be open and accessible etc., etc., so there are funds available to help people attend.
But what happens when people abuse the system?
The ICANN Ombudsman issued a report about one such attempted abuse and it is abundantly clear that people "trying it on" will not get away with it.
ICANN is an international "not for profit". How someone can think of trying to rip the organisation off for a few hundred dollars is disgraceful (though I'd love to know how much the Ombudsman's decision cost - was it more than the amount of money in question? I suspect it was... )
But what happens when people abuse the system?
The ICANN Ombudsman issued a report about one such attempted abuse and it is abundantly clear that people "trying it on" will not get away with it.
ICANN is an international "not for profit". How someone can think of trying to rip the organisation off for a few hundred dollars is disgraceful (though I'd love to know how much the Ombudsman's decision cost - was it more than the amount of money in question? I suspect it was... )
While it's been less than a month since the introduction of multi-year registrations in the IE namespace, initial figures show that 6
% of new registrations since then have been for two years or more.
% of new registrations since then have been for two years or more.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=66ef1cf3-e947-4d51-a0a1-7dededad1042)
Feed Subscription
If you use an RSS reader, you can subscribe to a feed of all future entries tagged “domains”.
Recent Comments
Francesco on BS.com WIPO Decision: I am glad