Recently in registries Category

Nominet, the registry operator that manages *.uk, is planning on releasing both single and two character domain names.

In common with a lot of other ccTLD registry operators, Nominet had blocked single and two character domain names from being registered. However they are now planning on releasing them to the public in a phased plan.

The exact details of "how" the domains will become available have not been decided, which is why the registry is now conducting a consultation period with the public.

The current proposal is not drastically different to the kind of methodology used by several of the gTLD registry operators to handle similar scenarios, although there are a few extra twists. To start with Nominet is speaking of the entire project in terms of "cost recovery", whereas other registries have used this kind of release as a revenue generator. The other thing which is quite interesting is how they plan to differentiate based on the second level ie. org.uk domains, according to their proposal, should be given to charities and not for profits, while co.uk should go to business users. While this is very logical it's still interesting to note that they've "gone back to basics" in some respects.

You can view full details of what Nominet are planning on their site and share your thoughts.

It will be interesting to see how the Nominet registrars and the public react to this news.

PIR, the registry operator for .org, has relaunched their website.

The new site is currently "beta", though that seems like an odd way to label a public-facing site that has been live for years ..

The area that interests me, of course, is the registrar list .. And I'm not overly impressed with the way it displays..

SIDN, the registry operator for .nl (Netherlands) have launched their new site.

The new look site gives the registry a complete visual facelift.

You can find it here.

SIDN, the registry operator for .nl, has announced the introduction of a new service for its registrars. The new phishing alert service harnesses data provided by Netcraft and will automatically email the registrar of record of any .nl domain name that is flagged as being used in a phishing attack.

Every five minutes or so, SIDN checks Netcraft's suspect URL database,
which is constantly being updated. Every time a .nl URL is added to the
database, an e-mail message is automatically sent to the relevant
registrar's administrative contact e-mail address. In other words, the
system does not rely on periodic reporting, but on almost immediate
individualised e-mail contact. It therefore provides a basis for very
rapid intervention. The service is due to enter use on February 15,
2010.

Message content
The e-mail sent to draw a registrar's attention to the fact that a
client is running a website that may be fraudulent will include the
following information:

- Suspected phishing site URL
- Host: the IP address of the system running the website
- Country: the country of origin of the IP address
- Date: the date and time that the suspect site was detected
- Target: the name of the company that seems to be targeted

SIDN are conscious of the danger of such a service and warn registrars that there may be false alarms.

It will be interesting to see how registrars and the wider internet community react to the introduction of this service.

Again on the subject of new TLDs ....

One of the "issues" that concerned a number of people is the concept of "vertical separation".

The basic idea is that registries and registrars should be kept separate.

While that is a wonderful Utopian ideal, the reality is that in the real world companies own other companies, people trade in stocks and shares etc., etc. So it's far from being a simple "cut and dried" situation.

It's also a situation that I personally think has been blown out of all proportion. And of course the people who are pushing it hard are the current registry operators. Can you say "monopoly"?
Or how about "fear"?

Be that as it may, the debate has been going on for months. During the Seoul meeting there was a public debate where both sides of the argument were able to "have it out", but while that may have helped clarify things for some people it didn't resolve it.

Fast forward to January 2010.

The GNSO council has now voted that the only way to resolve this issue once and for all is via  a PDP - which is ICANN speak for a quite drawn out policy development process:

A set of formal steps, as defined in the ICANN bylaws, to guide the initiation, internal and external review, timing and approval of policies needed to coordinate the global Internet's system of unique identifiers.

In many cases a PDP can take years to go through the full process, though there have been some exceptions in the recent past (think "tasting").

The motion that the GNSO council approved sets very clear limits on the PDP, but whether or not it will be possible for a policy debate as contentious (for some people) as this to be resolved in the 16 weeks mentioned or not is a different matter.

Nominet has joined the ranks of those registry operators who have embraced the much vaunted and possibly hyped, "social media".

In the last few weeks the UK registry operator has started using two Twitter accounts and its Facebook page to interact with its members (and other interested parties).

Based on member feedback they have also started sending out technical notifications via email to supplement their existing RSS feeds.

On Twitter they are using:

@Nominet - seems to be general Nominet news and interaction
@NominetTech - technical service announcements

You can find their facebook presence here.

Obviously both the Facebook and Twitter presences are accessible to both Nominet members and members of the public, while other fora, such as the private member forum, are not.

Hopefully these new efforts towards public engagement will have a positive impact on the registry.

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:

• Powers in relation to internet domain registries
  
• Appointment of manager of internet domain registry
• Application to court to alter constitution of internet domain registry
  
  

What is worrying is how they "plan" to enact their powers in the case of "registry failure":

"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.
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.

Why are they referring to "members"? Only Nominet and its members would ever refer to themselves using such terminology.
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

PIR, which is behind the .org (dotOrg) registry, has issued a call for statements of interest from people interested in joining their board.

According to the announcement on the ISOC site PIR is looking for two directors for the period covering July 2010 to July 2013.

Full details of what they're looking for and the application process may be found here

While the announcement does go into plenty of detail about what is required, it's a bit lacking in terms of compensation details.

Are PIR board members renumerated?

Presumably the expenses associated with travelling to the various meetings are covered, but again, there are no details.

AFNIC, which runs the .fr registry, has published its Action Plan for 2010.

While the "old chestnut" of DNSSEC is on the agenda (no surprise there!), there's also reference to a change in the registration rules.

Under the current registration rules registrants need to supply an address in France.
The proposed change is intended to open up registration to all French nationals regardless of their place of residence.

So does this leave the door open for a wider change?

Are we likely to see non-French nationals being able to register .fr domains without having to "jump through hoops"?

The current situation is more than a little frustrating. If a non-French company or individual wants to register a .fr domain, regardless of their motives, the registry rules render the registration incredibly difficult. While other ccTLD registries may have restrictive rules, in most instances there are relatively "sane" ways to navigate them.

It's not clear from the document that has been published what the registry's exact plans are in this area, but any change and progress in this area should be welcomed.

According to the document the plan would need to be voted on by the board in November.

The original text is available via the AFNIC site.

Afilias are running a competition with a prize fund of $7500 for the first prize.

Full details of the competition and the entry form are on the official competition site