Recently in Domains Category
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!
One of the topics that keeps coming up in ICANN policy discussions and as part of the new TLD application process is "transparency".
ICANN, and the internet community in general, has had plenty of issues in the past with "bad actors" who have caused a lot of issues for everyone (think of many of the registrars who have lost accreditation in the last couple of years for example).
On more than one conference call or policy discussion the issue of a company or a person's track record has come up.
Now while I personally think that anyone who has been knowingly involved in criminal activity OR who has knowingly been involved with a serious breach of ICANN policy (or any of the contracts) should be barred from any further involvement with the DNS, a blanket ban is not without its own set of issues.
The larger the company the more likely it will have been involved with litigation or criminal law suits at some point or other in the past.
And who is pushing for all these "checks and balances" within the ICANN processes? In many cases it's the big brand owners, who live in fear of "squatters" and other "evil doers".
So why do I raise this?
Well George Kirikos has, yet again, managed to dig up some quite revealing data about some of the companies that likely to be involved in new TLDs in the future and who have been very vocal in the ICANN "space" over the last few years.
You can read the full text of what George uncovered here, but suffice to say that a lot of the big brands and companies aren't as "clean" as they'd like us all to be (and no that wasn't a typo).
Unilever, Disney, Coca-Cola, Time Warner, Yahoo! and Telstra are all named and, if you'll excuse the cliche, shamed...
ICANN, and the internet community in general, has had plenty of issues in the past with "bad actors" who have caused a lot of issues for everyone (think of many of the registrars who have lost accreditation in the last couple of years for example).
On more than one conference call or policy discussion the issue of a company or a person's track record has come up.
Now while I personally think that anyone who has been knowingly involved in criminal activity OR who has knowingly been involved with a serious breach of ICANN policy (or any of the contracts) should be barred from any further involvement with the DNS, a blanket ban is not without its own set of issues.
The larger the company the more likely it will have been involved with litigation or criminal law suits at some point or other in the past.
And who is pushing for all these "checks and balances" within the ICANN processes? In many cases it's the big brand owners, who live in fear of "squatters" and other "evil doers".
So why do I raise this?
Well George Kirikos has, yet again, managed to dig up some quite revealing data about some of the companies that likely to be involved in new TLDs in the future and who have been very vocal in the ICANN "space" over the last few years.
You can read the full text of what George uncovered here, but suffice to say that a lot of the big brands and companies aren't as "clean" as they'd like us all to be (and no that wasn't a typo).
Unilever, Disney, Coca-Cola, Time Warner, Yahoo! and Telstra are all named and, if you'll excuse the cliche, shamed...
If you work in the domain industry it's only natural that you would put big brands' choices under the microscope to some degree.
In the case of Apple they are a very big target.
Earlier today Apple released, to much hype, their latest product offering. The iPad.
You can read all about its features here, but where would you go to find out about the product itself and actually order one?
You would assume that ipad.com was owned by Apple.
You'd be wrong.
The owner of ipad.com will probably see a huge increase in their web traffic over the next few days, but they're just an innocent bystander.
The domain ipad.com has been registered since 1997 and so any attempt by Apple to grab the domain would have been difficult, if not futile. Having said that, however, they may have tried it!
Apple is using a simple sub-directory off their main site to provide all the info about their new product.
Of course if you are in favour of new TLDs this is just another wonderful example of how a company like Apple could make use of their own TLD. If Apple owned .apple or .mac they'd have been able to launch their new product via the more memorable ipad.apple instead of apple.com/ipad
In the case of Apple they are a very big target.
Earlier today Apple released, to much hype, their latest product offering. The iPad.
You can read all about its features here, but where would you go to find out about the product itself and actually order one?
You would assume that ipad.com was owned by Apple.
You'd be wrong.
The owner of ipad.com will probably see a huge increase in their web traffic over the next few days, but they're just an innocent bystander.
The domain ipad.com has been registered since 1997 and so any attempt by Apple to grab the domain would have been difficult, if not futile. Having said that, however, they may have tried it!
Apple is using a simple sub-directory off their main site to provide all the info about their new product.
Of course if you are in favour of new TLDs this is just another wonderful example of how a company like Apple could make use of their own TLD. If Apple owned .apple or .mac they'd have been able to launch their new product via the more memorable ipad.apple instead of apple.com/ipad
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
The UK's Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a number of complaints brought against Domain Registry of America (DROA).
In a recent ruling the UK regulator's decision includes responses from DROA and is worth reading.
The complaint centred around three complaints:
Three recipients believed the mailing was misleading because it appeared to be a bill requiring payment and implied they had transferred a domain name registration when they had not.
No surprise there.
Their reply, however, should raise a few eyebrows:
Domain Renewal Group (DRG) said their mailing was intended to notify recipients that their domain name was about to expire and, because of deregulation in the Domain Name industry, consumers had a choice of registrars with whom to renew or register a domain name. They said their mailing did not claim that the recipient's domain name had been transferred to DRG or that payment was due without agreeing to move to their company. They believed this was clear from the claims "Domain name holders are not obligated to renew their domain name with their current Registrar or with the Domain Renewal Group", "Review our prices and decide for yourself. You are under no obligation to pay the amounts stated below, unless you accept this offer" and "This notice is not a bill, it is rather an easy means of payment should you decide to switch your domain name registration to the Domain Renewal Group".
The ASA didn't believe their explanation:
The ASA noted the mailing was headed "Domain Name Expiration Notice" and closely resembled a bill, including a credit card payment slip, and considered recipients were likely to infer that their domain name had been transferred to DRG and a renewal payment was now required. We noted the mailing stated "This notice is not a bill ...", "You are under no obligation to pay the amounts stated below ..." and "... now is the time to transfer and renew your name from your current Registrar to the Domain renewal Group ...", but did not consider it was sufficient to remove the overall impression that the mailing was a genuine bill requiring payment. We concluded that the mailing was misleading for falsely implying that recipients had already transferred their domain name to DRG and for not making sufficiently clear that it was a marketing communication
What does this mean for DROA?
Unfortunately very little, as the ASA does not have a huge amount of power, nor does its counterpart in any other country, at least not to my knowledge.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=23bbea42-a28c-42ce-b55c-f6b3d059b655)
In a recent ruling the UK regulator's decision includes responses from DROA and is worth reading.
The complaint centred around three complaints:
Three recipients believed the mailing was misleading because it appeared to be a bill requiring payment and implied they had transferred a domain name registration when they had not.
No surprise there.
Their reply, however, should raise a few eyebrows:
Domain Renewal Group (DRG) said their mailing was intended to notify recipients that their domain name was about to expire and, because of deregulation in the Domain Name industry, consumers had a choice of registrars with whom to renew or register a domain name. They said their mailing did not claim that the recipient's domain name had been transferred to DRG or that payment was due without agreeing to move to their company. They believed this was clear from the claims "Domain name holders are not obligated to renew their domain name with their current Registrar or with the Domain Renewal Group", "Review our prices and decide for yourself. You are under no obligation to pay the amounts stated below, unless you accept this offer" and "This notice is not a bill, it is rather an easy means of payment should you decide to switch your domain name registration to the Domain Renewal Group".
The ASA didn't believe their explanation:
The ASA noted the mailing was headed "Domain Name Expiration Notice" and closely resembled a bill, including a credit card payment slip, and considered recipients were likely to infer that their domain name had been transferred to DRG and a renewal payment was now required. We noted the mailing stated "This notice is not a bill ...", "You are under no obligation to pay the amounts stated below ..." and "... now is the time to transfer and renew your name from your current Registrar to the Domain renewal Group ...", but did not consider it was sufficient to remove the overall impression that the mailing was a genuine bill requiring payment. We concluded that the mailing was misleading for falsely implying that recipients had already transferred their domain name to DRG and for not making sufficiently clear that it was a marketing communication
What does this mean for DROA?
Unfortunately very little, as the ASA does not have a huge amount of power, nor does its counterpart in any other country, at least not to my knowledge.
You'll have to excuse me for the Shakespeare quote, but something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
While talking to some of the people involved with the Danish domain industry it becomes evident that there is something something seriously wrong with how .dk handles disputes.
A recent case revolved around the domain orango.dk
The domain had been registered for nearly 10 years (since 2000)
The registrant was using the domain in good faith since they registered the domain name, but now found themselves subject to a dispute.
The dispute involves a 3rd party that have requested a trademark for "orango", but only did so this year.
Somehow, and this is the bit that makes absolutely no sense to me, the arbitration court found in favour of the complainant!
If that isn't a reverse hijack then I'd love to know what it is!
Maybe Danish registrants would be better off using other TLDs?
You can download the original text of the decision here (it's in Danish)
Thanks to the guys in Larsen Data for providing various translations of it. (Peter has posted about it also - again in Danish)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=bdd3584f-7c8c-4091-82f7-4c375cae7096)
While talking to some of the people involved with the Danish domain industry it becomes evident that there is something something seriously wrong with how .dk handles disputes.
A recent case revolved around the domain orango.dk
The domain had been registered for nearly 10 years (since 2000)
The registrant was using the domain in good faith since they registered the domain name, but now found themselves subject to a dispute.
The dispute involves a 3rd party that have requested a trademark for "orango", but only did so this year.
Somehow, and this is the bit that makes absolutely no sense to me, the arbitration court found in favour of the complainant!
If that isn't a reverse hijack then I'd love to know what it is!
Maybe Danish registrants would be better off using other TLDs?
You can download the original text of the decision here (it's in Danish)
Thanks to the guys in Larsen Data for providing various translations of it. (Peter has posted about it also - again in Danish)
I know I'm a bit late to the game with this one, but here's the Telnic promo video with the alternate ending:
ICANN's Post-Expiry Domain Name Recovery Working Group (bit of a mouthful!) has opened a comment period.
The questions being asked are as follows:
1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names;
2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;
3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;
4. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined);
5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period (RGP).
Full details may be found on the ICANN site.
If you have an opinion on any of the questions please let your opinion be known.
(Disclosure: I am a member of the working group)
The questions being asked are as follows:
1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names;
2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;
3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;
4. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined);
5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period (RGP).
Full details may be found on the ICANN site.
If you have an opinion on any of the questions please let your opinion be known.
(Disclosure: I am a member of the working group)
The new TLD process is occupying a lot of people in the domain name industry at present.
While some people are obviously very much against the entire concept of new TLDs, there are plenty of people and organisations who support the project.
But what happens when you have more than one organisation vying for the same namespace?
While the ICANN new TLD application process itself has its own way of dealing with competing bids there's nothing to stop the interested parties in "duking it out" in public.
Seemingly the competition between two rival bids for .eco (doteco) has been getting more than a little dirty in the past few weeks.
Earlier this evening Dot Eco LLC, which is backed by Al Gore, the Sierra Club, the Alliance for Climate Protection and Surfrider Foundation, issued what they called an "open examination" of the competing bids. Anyone reading it would be excused for seeing it as a gauntlet being thrown by Dot Eco LLC in the face of Big Room's competing bid - and its partner Afilias.
The document, which runs to 17 pages, makes for interesting reading and examines the credentials of both bids, while also questioning the viability and chances of success of the rival bid.
For example, the economic analysis draws on the financials of PIR, which runs .org. PIR uses Afilias to run their backend, so it would not be unreasonable to assume that any arrangements Afilias has made with that registry would be emulated with others.
Of course this is a theory - not fact, but it is one that has been logically argued and demonstrated using data based on existing TLDs.
Having said that, Dot Eco LLC have been very open about the costs they will face from their chosen backend provider - Minds and Machines.
Minds and Machines have, in turn, also made a public commitment to "going green" and will also be incentivising their registrar partners to adopt "green" policies.
Have Afilias done anything similar?
While the public catfight between the two competing bids may be interesting to watch as it plays out it does, from an observer's perspective, raise a couple of interesting issues.
Presuming that other strings are going to be as attractive as .eco is for the two rivals mentioned (and without even mentioning the potential bid for .green), can expect to see a certain degree of this sort of mudslinging between future rival bids?
If some of the new TLD bids are going to have "agendas" attached to them, will they be viable or will we end up with a bunch of tiny namespaces that nobody uses or really cares about?
While it is clear that not all TLD projects are motivated purely by economics a lot of them will have taken on outside investors. If the investors do not get some form of return, will they walk away?
In many respects this kind of public catfight could act as just the first sign of worse to come.
While some people are obviously very much against the entire concept of new TLDs, there are plenty of people and organisations who support the project.
But what happens when you have more than one organisation vying for the same namespace?
While the ICANN new TLD application process itself has its own way of dealing with competing bids there's nothing to stop the interested parties in "duking it out" in public.
Seemingly the competition between two rival bids for .eco (doteco) has been getting more than a little dirty in the past few weeks.
Earlier this evening Dot Eco LLC, which is backed by Al Gore, the Sierra Club, the Alliance for Climate Protection and Surfrider Foundation, issued what they called an "open examination" of the competing bids. Anyone reading it would be excused for seeing it as a gauntlet being thrown by Dot Eco LLC in the face of Big Room's competing bid - and its partner Afilias.
The document, which runs to 17 pages, makes for interesting reading and examines the credentials of both bids, while also questioning the viability and chances of success of the rival bid.
For example, the economic analysis draws on the financials of PIR, which runs .org. PIR uses Afilias to run their backend, so it would not be unreasonable to assume that any arrangements Afilias has made with that registry would be emulated with others.
Of course this is a theory - not fact, but it is one that has been logically argued and demonstrated using data based on existing TLDs.
Having said that, Dot Eco LLC have been very open about the costs they will face from their chosen backend provider - Minds and Machines.
Minds and Machines have, in turn, also made a public commitment to "going green" and will also be incentivising their registrar partners to adopt "green" policies.
Have Afilias done anything similar?
While the public catfight between the two competing bids may be interesting to watch as it plays out it does, from an observer's perspective, raise a couple of interesting issues.
Presuming that other strings are going to be as attractive as .eco is for the two rivals mentioned (and without even mentioning the potential bid for .green), can expect to see a certain degree of this sort of mudslinging between future rival bids?
If some of the new TLD bids are going to have "agendas" attached to them, will they be viable or will we end up with a bunch of tiny namespaces that nobody uses or really cares about?
While it is clear that not all TLD projects are motivated purely by economics a lot of them will have taken on outside investors. If the investors do not get some form of return, will they walk away?
In many respects this kind of public catfight could act as just the first sign of worse to come.
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
Recent Comments
Francesco on EU IDNs - Some Governments Still Don't Get It!: Actually i
Michele Neylon on Food Fight Anyone?: Jorge Nic
Jorge on Food Fight Anyone?: Coming soo
John McCormac on DNS.be Release Figures Of Domain Usage: I didn't d
Michele Neylon on DNS.be Release Figures Of Domain Usage: John The
John McCormac on DNS.be Release Figures Of Domain Usage: It looks l
Michele Neylon on OVH Abuse AFNIC Member Database: Maigre Ou
Maigre on OVH Abuse AFNIC Member Database: OVH is not
Niall on IEDR Annual Report 2008 - More Fluff: Comreg are