In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series of blog posts I described the need for a registration operations industry association. At the end of Part 2, I wrote that Part 3 will describe "an opportunity for everyone that's interested in discussing this topic in a live environment." The large number of people attending ICANN 51 in Los Angeles presents the best chance of discussion with many potential participants being in the same place at the same time. Let's take advantage of that proximity.
We read carefully Scott Hollenbeck's call to form a Domain Name Industry association to promote consistency in technical operations across the many moving parts of the industry and we, the Board and members of the Domain Name Association, largely agree. More formal coordination among registry operators and domain name registrars would improve the domain name registration experience for registrants and business operations for the domain name industry in general.
In Part 1 of this series of blog posts I described the need for an industry association of operators to discuss the technical tasks, such as the development, deployment, and ongoing systems administration of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), performed by registries and registrars to ensure interoperability and share best practices when providing registration services. In this blog post I'll describe a way to make that happen.
Since 2001 there have been occasional conversations on technical mailing lists exploring the concept of creating an independent industry association or consortium of domain registration operators. My recent experiences with the evolution of extensions to the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) have convinced me to look at these suggestions more closely, and I'm now convinced that this is an idea worth exploring. "Registration Operations" refers to the technical tasks, such as the development, deployment, and ongoing systems administration of EPP, performed by registries and registrars to provide registration services.
On August 27, 2014, the world became a bit more connected as the Internet welcomed more than 400 million Hindi language speakers in their own language. .???? (.Bharat), which means India in the Hindi language, was inaugurated on August 27 in New Delhi by Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, India's Minister of Law & Justice and Communications & Information Technology.
Never let it be said that group therapy isn't effective. Prior to hosting a new Top-Level Domain (TLD) workshop for a group of Australian applicants last week, the only therapy I would have advised for new TLD applicants was electroshock therapy - given the confidence-sapping delays and the catastrophic impact of constant changes to the program such as Digital Archery, Name Collisions and GAC Advice.
The background is of course quite interesting, given how soon it has followed Microsoft's seizure of several domains belonging to Dynamic DNS provider no-ip.com for alleged complicity in hosting trojan RAT gangs, a couple of days after which the domains were subsequently returned -- without public comment -- to Vitalwerks, the operator of No-IP. This is by no means a new tactic for Microsoft, who has carried out successful seizures of various domains over the past two or three years.
In an unprecedented development, all stakeholder groups and constituencies comprising ICANN"s Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) unanimously endorsed a joint statement in support of the creation of an independent accountability mechanism "that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community". The statement was read aloud during a June 26th session on the IANA transition process held on the last day of the ICANN 50 public meeting in London.
Today we have sent following to the Minister of Industry Canada, James Moore, as well as the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) Board of Directors. This is in response to the revelation that CIRA is positioning to enter the managed DNS space. As we outline in the letter, we are fine with more competition (in fact Google just entered the domain and DNS space too... No, competition is a fact of life, what we want is more of it, not less. Here's what we wrote to The Honourable James Moore.
For some time, the measure of success of a TLD was volume of registrations, or strictly speaking, Domains Under Management (DUMs). Who better than .com to validate the truth of that metric? More recently, this same metric has been applied to new gTLDs, especially those who achieve volume quickly, by whatever means necessary. These gTLDs are fawned over, written about, and effectively set up as the standard for other gTLDs to aspire to. But I'd like to challenge that notion.