Domain Name, Internet, News Blog

Registrars who support .com domain names will use the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) system by October 28. From VeriSign:

VeriSign plans on making an EPP Automated Batch Pool will be available in parallel with the RRP Auto-Batch Pool beginning on October 3. The hostname for the EPP server will be epp-auto.verisign-grs.com.

The VeriSign plans on decommissioning the RRP Protocol will be decommissioned from the .com/.net Production and OT&E Environments during scheduled maintenance on October 28, 2006. This will include decommissioning the RRP Auto-Batch Pool, per the July 27 notification.

Registrars must use EPP following the October 28, 2006 decommissioning maintenance and will no longer able to perform transactions using the RRP Protocol.

According to the new regulations there will be an additional step when attempting to transfer .com domains among registrars. Specifically, a piece of information called an EPP code (aka auth code, EPP key, transfer secret) must be obtained from the current registrar and submitted to the gaining one prior to approving with the latter.

This is going to be a real inconvenience especially when one wants to transfers domains in bulk. Additionally the whole process is an incovenience in my opinion that only serves to hurt those people with massive portfolios. It is a pain for the high end players but less for the small players.

In what many see as a record ruling in Belgium last week, EURid was ordered unfroze 74,000 domains held over dispute against warehousers. EURid suspended registrations of 74,000 domains in July due to what it referred to as abuse by certain registrars. The registrars were accused of registering domains directly not on behalf of their clients.

But last week, according to an article published in the HT, EURid was ordered to pay $32,000 fine per hour for each domain per hour, unless it allowed the registrars to transfer the domains to the businesses

After the decision, EURid released the domains but refused to discuss the matter further citing a possible appeal. Since the introduction of the dot eu 2.1m domains have been registered and 210 domain disputes have been settled through arbitration. Among the landmark losers there is Oxford university which lost its domain oxford.eu to a small  trademarked business Ox&Ford!

In last week’s decision Cyprus based companies- Ovidio Ltd., Fausto Ltd. and Gabino Ltd– won square and fit. Arguing their case, they defended that they legitimately registered the domains so as to benefit from direct navigation. Direct navigation works under the principle that some internet users usually type web addresses eg. traveltickets.com. directly onto the url without making use the search engine (Yahoo and Google).

This is a big victory for Registrars indeed and a terrible loss for the dot EU registry!

There is a strong demand for the next evolution of the internet. Individuals and businesses in more than 100 countries around the world registered more than 100,000 .mobi domains in the first four days of the domain’s general availability. This is a great show by all means–an indicator that mobile internet has a future.

.mobi is the first and only top level domain dedicated to delivering Internet content to mobile phones. Built on the open standards developed as part of the Worldwide Web Consortium’s (W3C) Mobile Web Initiative, the .mobi domain makes accessing Internet sites on a mobile device faster, less expensive and more reliable by offering content tailored for the mobile Internet.

A few companies have already put their .mobi to use! Here are a few examples:

cnnmoney.mobi

businessweek.mobi

etc!

I recently read an article published on eWeek.com that I found a bit stingy. The article entitled “Typosquatting, DNS Wildcards and sucky state of domain affairs” addressed several points about the internet that I found very controversial. According to the author of the articled, which can be found here, the domain industry is a lawless world where, unless you’re a large company with a trademark being violated, the system is set up to the advantage of fast-moving speculators with no sense of respect for rights of authors.

According to him, it is only the strong muscled internet companies like Google, Ebay, Amazon among others which could seriously fight off any violations on their trademarks. I would disagree with the part the article claims that those who capitalize on website typos. In my opinion, the owners of typo do not mislead internet users through ads on typo webpages but rather offer leads to a variety of other goods within the related category!
While I agree that this author knows what he is talking about, indeed he has a point that he is making. It is important to note his wishful thinking of a day when the internet will be free of speculators who in my humble opinion are what makes the bulk of the online business success story.
However, I acknowledge when he rebukes rogue domain registries, like Cameroon whose CTLD incidentally squats on the .com TLD, over their overly handy decisions to wildcard all domains with the .cm extension last month.

In a similar vein the article challenges a proposed tiered pricing of domains with .biz/.org/.info extensions which will obviously give registrars unprecedented powers.     Says the article “ICANN is famously uninterested in protecting the rights of ordinary people. And now it has shown a renewed interest in making things worse”.

In the ensuing blah blah and meandering, the author ends up discussing the controversy surrounding the .eu phony registrars during the landrush mid this year.
TO sum it up, the article correctly acknowledges George Kiriko’s credit for raising amongst domain owners and other internet entrepreneurs about the proposed unfair pricing by ICANN.

ICANN was today lampasted with an avalanche of emails from internet users, mostly domain owners and other key businesses over proposed changes in pricing. ICANN has announced through a statement posted on its website that unlike in the past when it regulated .biz/.info/.org domain pricing, it would abandon such practice to the registrars. If you know what this means, then you are with me in challenging such arbitrary decisions. This means that registrars can charge domain buyers as much as it pleases them in terms of renewal and purchase fees.Publish

For instance, going by the current price of a .info @ $1.50, it could be inflated to $15 within a year or so which represents a massive 900% increase.
I would be addressing three points that I complained about in an email sent to ICANN today.

First, if the proposed changes are effected, registrars would effectively raise domain prices by a hundred forth percentage points. It would not be a surprise in the future when one is asked for a $1bn as renewal fee for a domain.
Second, registrar will have unprecedented pricing powers on the internet, something that has always been and remain a reserve for ICANN. ICANN is abdicating its important overarching role when it leaves it up to registrars to decide on domain prices.
Third, small business holders or better still domain owners would be be steadily squeezed out of business due to unaffordable domain renewal fees.
Last but not least, the ICANN recommendation that domain owners may pay renewal fees for up to 10 years based on existing domain prices is flawed at best. Such an assumption does not recognize other market factors like inflation and deflation. Not only might domains renewed in advance might depreciate in value but also not many businesses can afford to do so.

I believe that ICANN needs to change its position regarding this proposed policy that if it succeeds would only unfairly place the internet in the hands of a few individuals.

If you care about the sustainability of the domain industry, please address your complaints to the following email addresses today before midnight.