|
List of all DNC authorised registrars is available with .nz domain name pricing and other details. Please be advised that the list is out of date but it will be updated in future.
|
Sunday, 29 April 2007
|
|
DRS results todate
Looks like the DRS (I still have issues writing this to me the .nz disputes process and not the Domainz project with the same acronym) is rocking away with the DNC issuing details of results todate. One of the things on my list is writing my own summary of the cases todate and based on some things I am working on this should happen sooner rather than later.
9:44:06 PM
|
|
DomainTalk website
I have had a couple of emails about a new site called DomainTalk. It is a forum website with about a dozen areas relating to .nz. If it gets a bit more active and more people posting it might be a useful site. Then again at least it has far more activity then the moribund InternetNZ blog.
9:37:25 PM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, 8 April 2007
|
|
Veri$ign does the unexpected, not!
So last week InternetNZ announced a drop in domain name fees to $1.50 per month ($18 per annum). This was a 14% drop. Now you have to realise that .nz has less than 275,000 names (actually about 270,000).
So VeriSign manages about 65 million names under .com and .net. Of course due to the efficiencies they are increasing the price 7% to $6.42 (USD).
So lets do the math, 65 million names up 7%. 0.27 million names down 14%.
PS When I mean efficiencies I mean that of creating contracts with ICANN and not any directed toward customers.
4:05:22 PM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, 23 March 2006
|
|
So long and thanks for all the fish
With the appointment of the .nz Experts (the lawyers sitting on the disputes panel) the final part of the puzzle is in place for .nz. I have spent hundreds and maybe thousands of hours of blood sweat and tears into breaking the Domainz behemoth and putting in place a flexible and successful .nz system. For no personal gain or for any other reason than 'it was the right thing to do'. I think I will get off my butt and update the .nz registrar page, and keep it updated, and leave this policy stuff to those many people now employed by InternetNZ.
I guess it is a good thing that this now does not attract my interest. It means it is running well and working as it should. I would give the current .nz system a 9 out of 10. I will post in the up coming weeks about what changes I would put on my wish list.
10:54:46 AM
|
|
Does it really matter?
It is with some amusement I find myself very busy for next week. However my next week is not related to the first, and hopefully only, ICANN meeting in Wellington. I am off to LinuxWorld in Sydney something that actually has a technical focus, unlike ICANN.
I commented after finding out that we had lost won the 'right' to host the ICANN meeting that whatever was planned would mean nothing and it would just be hijacked by what other crisis event was occurring at the time. Much like every other ICANN meeting. The more things change the more they remain the same. This meeting like all ICANN meetings is much ado about nothing. Those that 'talk it up' are just those that gain their power by being involved in this process. Wouldn't be great if a ICANN meeting was held and no one showed up and would anyone care?
In my opinion the only part of ICANN that really impacts the ccTLD's is IANA. This is also not part of ICANN, ICANN just performs those duties on behalf of the US Government. Now with the Verisign agreement providing ICANN with millions of dollars direct from the monolopy agreement then ICANN can drop the final pretence of 'consulting' the community in these side shows called 'ICANN meetings'.
Enough of this ramble. I wanted to get if off my chest. Anyone want to take bets on how many press releases come out that actually say nothing, both during and after the meeting?
10:47:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 21 December 2005
|
|
More on DNMSL vs DNC
For those that are new or have forgotten DNMSL was in the news in June. In the recent NZOC meeting an agenda item was "Policy Compliance - in committee from approx 5pm". At the time I wondered who this was.
Since reading about the bullet to the head deauthorisation of DNMSL as a .nz registrar this morning I have made some calls and sent some emails.
The first is from Dennis Smith who alleges bias and predetermination of the DNC and requested NZOC appoint a mediator. He states NZOC rejected his request and endorsed the DNC's recommendation. He said me might do a release about this in the new year, or he might not.
The next is I followed up on the "The company has also twice been suspended by the registry for technical breaches." comment as this looked like an unusual event, especially as it had not been reported before (that I am aware of). NZRS will suspend a registrar under two broad areas:
- Whois access abuse
- Actions that could impact the integrity or performance of the registry
It appears whatever they did, or threatened to do, fell under the second area. This is more than just disagreement on policy and how the DNC enforces policy. For NZRS to suspend a registrar means that they must have had pretty clear evidence of actions that would impact all registrars and/or registrants. What the hell was DNMSL thinking?
If I find any more relevant information I will post about as I am able.
3:05:03 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, 19 December 2005
|
|
Bringing home the bacon
Stuff has a story about a .nz domain name dispute regarding premierbaconco.nz. Is it typo squating or fair use?
I will post my comments on the two sites once I have had a good chance to review them.
9:44:33 AM
|
|
Call for .nz Experts
The DNC has issued an announcement seeking mediators and experts for the .nz disputes process. Applications closes February 17th.
9:39:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, 8 December 2005
|
|
Behold the future!
I have been mulling the future of this site from some time.
The reason is simple, .nz, in general, has its shit together. Things are not falling apart or lawsuits being threatened (or in some cases filed) and multi million dollar projects run by inept management are not occurring any more.
I created this blog back in July 2002 in the days of the formation of the SRS to highlight what was going to those people that did not ‘live the SRS’.
While I do not think .nz is perfect it is one of the best ccTLD’s. I think that for instance NZOC should be more transparent and broader process for appointments and full registrar stats being made public.
The last part of the jigsaw is the .nz disputes process. Once that is implemented I will cover any initial cases and then I think I will turn out the lights. I plan to keep the site online for all those amusing Google searches I get.
Other options were to turn it into a ‘personal blog’ but then again I would rather give myself a lobotomy with a spork than do that. For a brief moment I had thought about running the Unofficial DPF Fan Site (UDPFFS) but I think some 8 year old girl called Sarah is already planning on doing that so I wont steal her thunder :-)
I plan to refocus my attention on the registrar survey that I was half way through doing before a hard drive crash and being a reference site for the .nz ccTLD.
Of course if I’m lucky .nz could all fall apart and I could have a ‘target rich environment’ again and things will be back to the ‘good old days’. Here’s hoping!
10:02:28 AM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 23 November 2005
|
|
ComputerWorld: Right of Reply
Paul Brislen, Chief Arm Waver Editor of ComputerWorld, emailed me last night about what I said about the ComputerWorld article on the .nz disputes draft. I said I would reply to his comments and asked if I could publish his email. He welcomed both.
Email as follows:
I have to disagree (respectfully or otherwise). Debbie did email Steve about this story and I called her back and left a message but she hasn't called me back so we're in phone limbo over it.
As I read the draft (and yes, I've read it. Call me old fashioned, etc) the old policy of "first come, first served and if you have any disputes take them up with your lawyers, we don't want to hear about it, pass the asprin it gives us a headache" will be replaced (all things considered) with "first come, first served but if you have a dispute we have a process that you might like to look at if you want to avoid going to court".
I particularly like this paragraph:
"Parties disputing domain-name rights have always been free to negotiate between themselves and to have recourse to the courts, and there have been a number of legal decions in this regard. But the proposed procedure is the first step into the fray by InternetNZ itself and its operational arm, the Domain Name Commissioner."
which I think sets out the position accurately and fairly. InternetNZ is stepping "into the fray" by introducing a new policy. It does not imply that IntNZ will be deciding the outcome of any dispute, simply saying the dispute resolution process is changing. Can't use the DRS term though. Oh the humanity.
So I stand by our headline "First come, first served up for review" because it is. And I still like the standfirst "Being first may no longer guarantee a domain under proposed new InternetNZ rules" although I realise now that being first wasn't any guarantee at all, but that the process was dependent on the courts seeing the light rather than the society dictating, but that doesn't fit in a singe sentence unless you run it on a bit like this one. This does not imply that IntNZ itself was ever guaranteeing a registration, simply that the process gave first dibs to the first person to register the name.
As for the tone, I just don't see any. Steve isn't saying "big corporates can grab any name they think they should have off poor little registrants" implied or otherwise. Far from it - he quotes from the report itself. Hardly implicit - it's highly explicit, listing some of the terms under which a dispute might arise.
Or am I misreading the daft report?
9:46:26 AM
|
|
|
|
Friday, 18 November 2005
|
|
ComputerWorld gets it wrong on .nz disputes process
It's not common for me to pick apart a story from ComputerWorld now days... but here goes.
On Tuesday a story was placed online called "'First come first served’ up for review at InternetNZ" and with a lead sentence of "Being first may no longer guarantee a domain under proposed new InternetNZ rules".
This story is in fact about the disputes process that is being put in place by the DNC. The 'first come, first served' has nothing to do with the disputes process (I can not bring myself to refer to is as the DRS... the flash backs still occur :-). The 'first come, first served' is not being changed, nor does the dispute process change or impact it. This is just a more cost effective and more agile approach than resulting to the legal process that exists in New Zealand. A High Court has always had jurisdiction over .nz names and that is not changing. However, a level between 'nothing' and 'the High Court' is being added based on a very long public consultation process.
InternetNZ has never been able to 'guarantee' a domain name and nor would it want to. The entire tone of the story implies that 'big corporates can grab any name they think they should have off poor little registrants'. Well, thats not the case. Read the draft policy and make up your own mind.
2:35:50 PM
|
|
WSIS round up
As the publishing issue took so long to fix I have not blogged on the WSIS issue. The following is a round up of stories that I think cover the issue:
2:10:41 PM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright 2007 Foxbane Ltd and Steven Heath.
Last update: 10/07/2007; 9:11:12 a.m..
|
|
| July 2007 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| 8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
| 15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
| 22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
| 29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
| Apr Aug |
|
Archived Months
February 2006
January 2006
|
|
|
