Entries tagged with “registrant” from Domains / Internet Technology News - DNS News
The Digital Britain report and the legislation which is now before the UK parliament (Digital Economy Bill) makes for very scary reading.
The implications of the legislation are far reaching - and not just within the UK
What about the sections of the legislation that refer to domain registries? Note the plural
There is an entire section of the legislation dedicated to "internet domain registries", which is "nicely" divided into sub-sections:
"3) There is a relevant failure in relation to an internet domain registry if --
(a) the registry, or any of its registrars or end-users, engages in prescribed practices that are unfair or involve the misuse of internet domain names,
or
(b) the arrangements made by the registry for dealing with complaints in connection with internet domain names do not comply with prescribed requirements."
Note the choice of language. Not only is failure deemed to have happened if the registry messes up, but it also gets triggered if a registrar OR a registrant does something that they don't like.
Now if you examine some of the supporting documents that they used while preparing the legislation you are going to be in for a shock.
In common with other pieces of legislation, this one was not drafted overnight. It comes after a long period of supposed planning and research. I say "supposed", as the document covering the "impact assessment" is horrendously misinformed.
Taking just one or two choice paragraphs from that document as examples:
Does this mean that the British government views all Nominet members as being phishers?
I'd certainly hope not, but their choice of that term is interesting to say the least. I won't even bother addressing their definitions. Suffice to say, the definitions are flawed to the extreme.
If they are basing the concept of failure around those sorts of concepts then it may be time for Nominet registrars to look more closely at .eu!
So let's return to the "registries" once more.
As things stand at present there is more than one "registry" in the UK.
While the biggest and best known of them is obviously Nominet, there is also both Telnic and Centralnic.
While Centralnic's may be best known for domain extensions such as gb.com, it also handles the registry services for .la - Laos or Los Angeles (depending on who you ask!)
Telnic has already expressed its concern at the permutations of such legislation
And what of those organisations that were planning on getting new TLDs? What of the likes of .scot or .cym? Or any other company that was interested in applying for a new TLD with ICANN.
Has the UK government overlooked the fact that ICANN already exists?
Did they consult with ICANN prior to this?
Other parts of the bill, which deal with copyright protection (they're hailing it as progress - any normal person would view it as a denial of their right to fair process.. ) and plenty of other things that will render the UK the most internet unfriendly country in Europe.
Is this the swan song for the failing Labour government in Britain?
Do they want to be remembered for introducing draconian legislation that will effectively force internet companies in the UK to move?
I for one am scared
The implications of the legislation are far reaching - and not just within the UK
What about the sections of the legislation that refer to domain registries? Note the plural
There is an entire section of the legislation dedicated to "internet domain registries", which is "nicely" divided into sub-sections:
- Powers in relation to internet domain registries
- Appointment of manager of internet domain registry
- Application to court to alter constitution of internet domain registry
"3) There is a relevant failure in relation to an internet domain registry if --
(a) the registry, or any of its registrars or end-users, engages in prescribed practices that are unfair or involve the misuse of internet domain names,
or
(b) the arrangements made by the registry for dealing with complaints in connection with internet domain names do not comply with prescribed requirements."
Note the choice of language. Not only is failure deemed to have happened if the registry messes up, but it also gets triggered if a registrar OR a registrant does something that they don't like.
Now if you examine some of the supporting documents that they used while preparing the legislation you are going to be in for a shock.
In common with other pieces of legislation, this one was not drafted overnight. It comes after a long period of supposed planning and research. I say "supposed", as the document covering the "impact assessment" is horrendously misinformed.
Taking just one or two choice paragraphs from that document as examples:
Cyber-squatting - members apply to register domain names which are of economic value to other people and then charge then high prices to buy them.Why are they referring to "members"? Only Nominet and its members would ever refer to themselves using such terminology.
Drop-catching - members wait until the expiry date for an existing registered domain name has just passed and the exploit the few seconds between the expiry of the registration and the effecting of the original owner's automatic registration in order to snatch the name and then charge for them to buy it back
Phishing - a member uses the domain name that is confusingly similar to another one (usually of a well known brand) in order to dupe members of the public to enter the site.
Does this mean that the British government views all Nominet members as being phishers?
I'd certainly hope not, but their choice of that term is interesting to say the least. I won't even bother addressing their definitions. Suffice to say, the definitions are flawed to the extreme.
If they are basing the concept of failure around those sorts of concepts then it may be time for Nominet registrars to look more closely at .eu!
So let's return to the "registries" once more.
As things stand at present there is more than one "registry" in the UK.
While the biggest and best known of them is obviously Nominet, there is also both Telnic and Centralnic.
While Centralnic's may be best known for domain extensions such as gb.com, it also handles the registry services for .la - Laos or Los Angeles (depending on who you ask!)
Telnic has already expressed its concern at the permutations of such legislation
And what of those organisations that were planning on getting new TLDs? What of the likes of .scot or .cym? Or any other company that was interested in applying for a new TLD with ICANN.
Has the UK government overlooked the fact that ICANN already exists?
Did they consult with ICANN prior to this?
Other parts of the bill, which deal with copyright protection (they're hailing it as progress - any normal person would view it as a denial of their right to fair process.. ) and plenty of other things that will render the UK the most internet unfriendly country in Europe.
Is this the swan song for the failing Labour government in Britain?
Do they want to be remembered for introducing draconian legislation that will effectively force internet companies in the UK to move?
I for one am scared
Rather than rehash my original post from earlier today take a look here
I've always had mixed feelings about registries contacting registrants directly.
On one level it doesn't bother me in the least, but on another I can see how it causes confusion
Over the past couple of years we've been dealing with an ever-growing number of registries and seen a wide variety of policies and implementations, but the contact policy is one that always causes some headaches.
Over on the IEDR discussion forums the question has been raised by several IE resellers, while the question has raised its head on the Nominet discussion lists as well.
Nominet will contact the registrant if the registrar does not renew the domain. If the registrant opts to go directly with the registry they get charged £80 Sterling, which is significantly higher than what most registrars would charge.
IEDR has a very similar process, but the gap in pricing between the registry and many of its resellers / registrars is a lot closer.
If a domain was registered via a registrar but moves direct to the registry several issues arise:
What should the registry do?
What do registrants want?
On one level it doesn't bother me in the least, but on another I can see how it causes confusion
Over the past couple of years we've been dealing with an ever-growing number of registries and seen a wide variety of policies and implementations, but the contact policy is one that always causes some headaches.
Over on the IEDR discussion forums the question has been raised by several IE resellers, while the question has raised its head on the Nominet discussion lists as well.
Nominet will contact the registrant if the registrar does not renew the domain. If the registrant opts to go directly with the registry they get charged £80 Sterling, which is significantly higher than what most registrars would charge.
IEDR has a very similar process, but the gap in pricing between the registry and many of its resellers / registrars is a lot closer.
If a domain was registered via a registrar but moves direct to the registry several issues arise:
- The registry may be competing against its own registrars
- The registry does not offer ancillary services such as DNS, so what happens to them?
- Registrants maybe moving to the registry due to confusion
What should the registry do?
What do registrants want?
Facebook, the social networking site that is "flavour de jour", has won a WIPO UDRP case.
The decision isn't that exciting, as the registrant did not respond. The domain face-book.com is currently parked, but will probably move in the next few days/ weeks.
The decision isn't that exciting, as the registrant did not respond. The domain face-book.com is currently parked, but will probably move in the next few days/ weeks.
Feed Subscription
If you use an RSS reader, you can subscribe to a feed of all future entries tagged “registrant”.
Recent Comments