I’m still recovering from the recent ICANN meeting in New Delhi. As well as a hand injury from a fall at the airport (which started off the week well), I managed to catch a nasty cough while I was there that I’m still suffering from and I therefore did’nt really get out of the hotel (for those still under the false impression that international meetings are a complete jolly). I do know we were in India though, as there were some great curries on offer!

There was a very full ICANN agenda, but here is a brief summary of some of the key discussions we were involved in:

Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs)

The introduction of IDNs (domain names in non-Latin scripts) will be one of the biggest changes to the Internet since its inception, so it is not surprising that policy making about IDNs could take a long time. The discussions in Delhi were another step forward on that journey and IDNs were on the agenda for a number of constituency meetings.

The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and country code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) representatives met to discuss the issues regarding IDN two letter country code Top Level Domains and this discussion will continue at the next meeting. As part of its communiqué to ICANN, the GAC advised that the public policy principles it previously developed for ccTLDs are relevant also to IDN ccTLDs.

The discussion about a ‘fast-track’ process for introducing IDN ccTLDs in the near-term was also discussed in several meetings. As some will know, I’m not convinced how fast a ‘fast track’ will be able to act, particularly as the key policy decisions will need to be made via the formal (lengthier) policy development process. However, next steps were agreed and the working group will submit its final report to the ICANN board in June 2008.

New generic top level domains (gTLDs)

The process for introducing new generic top level domains (gTLDs) was discussed and there is some pressure from potential applicants who naturally want to know when they can submit bids and how much they will need to pay. There is also some pressure from potential accredited registries who want to become accredited so that they can partner with applicants, but don’t yet know the criteria they will need to meet as these are being developed. Work has been progressing on an implementation plan based on the policy development work done by the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) and ICANN apparently hopes to start accepting bids for new gTLDs by the end of 2008 at the earliest. I expect that date may need to slip, as there is much work to be done by ICANN and the various consultants before everything will be ready.

Joint Project Agreement
In the open session on the JPA review, the ICANN Chairman helpfully ‘clarified’ that the ICANN submission to the review was not seeking an immediate end to the JPA, but dialogue about what will happen when it ends in 18 months time. Many present seemed to agree that we should use the time to discuss what accountabilty and oversight will be needed for an independent ICANN. I suspect there will not be so much agreement about what form this should take. As I pointed out, this is actually quite a tight timescale for an international multi-stakeholder discussion and dialogue will need to develop rapidly if an acceptable solution is to be found.

I was delighted to recently welcome to Nominet Roelof Meijer, CEO of SIDN the registry for .nl, as part of a job swap auction for our senior management we held last year to raise money for our chosen charity.As we shared ideas and experiences it was quite fascinating to discuss the fact that our respective registries have many similarities. We are both running country code Top Level Domain registries that are experiencing continued growth and we are both working hard to improve our systems and services. SIDN have also won the contract to run the registry for ENUM within the Netherlands, as we have for the UK. For both organisations this represents a significant opportunity to diversify from our core businesses of running country code Top Level Domain registries. Both registries are also taking more of a leading role internationally. This is in order to share best practices and experiences, but also to ensure that the interests of our local Internet communities are taken into account in international discussions.

The Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) of ICANN have reported the results of their investigation into Domain Name Front Running (DNFR).  The conclusion, after a pretty thorough analysis, concurs with our findings that there are no provable cases of DNFR.  It also highlights the major issue that there is widespread confusion amongst registrants as to how the domain name industry works and their expectations are very different from reality.

One other very interesting part of the report is the figures given for the volumes of certain lookups done in the .com and .net.  For example in July 2007 there were 3.9 billion  WHOIS lookups for .com and .net !

News that a company has recently paid a record £560,000 for the domain name cruises.co.uk indicates that the secondary market for .uk domain names is still strong.

Cruise.co.uk decided to pay the large sum to a German travel company for the plural version of the domain name in order to improve their chances of being the first port of call for web users searching for cruise holidays.

What’s interesting is that being the registrant of cruise.co.uk, the purchaser has a clear idea of the potential value of the domain name to their business. They were therefore in a good position to determine what was a fair price as opposed to speculating about potential future revenues.

It should also be noted, of course, that we can’t be sure whether this is actually the highest price paid for a .co.uk domain name, as private sales happen regularly and not everyone is as open as this about how much they have paid.

The list of things that we’ll be discussing at the forthcoming ICANN meeting seems to be growing longer by the day. I’m travelling to Delhi tomorrow and you can bet that by the time I’ve landed there will be yet more last minute papers and additional meetings. For the time being, my topic list includes:

- The draft ICANN 2009 budget (just issued on Monday) which has expenses rising by $15m or 36% to $57m. One of the first things to strike me is that the cost of new gTLDs in 2009 is over $12m, but spend on security and stability is only $3.5m! It feels the wrong way around to me.

-  The NTIA request for comment and the ICANN approach to the mid-term review. Like a number of others, we’re calling for discussions about the possible transition during the remaining 18 months of the agreement. ICANN are in full lobbying mode though and are encouraging standard emails (for which they’ll helpfully provide the template) directly to the US Government calling for them to deliver on previous promises. I’m surprised at this approach, which has been amusingly labelled ‘astroturfing’ in Brett Fausett’s blog.

- The possible accreditation of registries. In theory, minimum standards for registry providers has to be a good thing for registrants and registrars, but the devil will be in the detail of course.

There will also be the latest on the new gTLD process, domain name tasting, IPV4 address exhaustion, domain name front running, DNSSEC and increasing participation. A busy week ahead then…..

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the United States Dept of Commerce has called for comments on the transition to the private sector of the technical coordination and management of the Internet’s domain name and addressing system. This is in the form of the mid-term review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between the NTIA and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

This isn’t the sort of consultation where a 3 line comment would be appropriate and our response extends to almost 3 pages. Our view is that:

- there is more to be done to improve participation in and effectiveness of the ICANN supporting structure.

- the operational checks that the NTIA currently perform should ultimately be integrated fully into ICANN/IANA functionality.

- there should be in-depth discussions amongst all relevant stakeholders over the remaining eighteen months of the JPA to develop a shared vision of a post-transition ICANN. In particular, what will ICANN’s accountabilities be and to whom?

I’m reminded of the TS Eliot quote “if I’d had more time I’d have written a shorter letter”!

The link to our full response is here:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/latest/?contentId=4767

My diary seems to have been crammed full with preparations for the forthcoming ICANN meeting, including drafting the Nominet response to the NTIA review (more on both later).

It was therefore really nice to have a non-domain name related day recently, talking about how to become an employer of choice and to receive our Best Companies accreditation award. It takes a certain amount of bravery to agree to enter this scheme as the independent ratings are based on what your staff really think about working for your company. Whilst we’ve still got things to do to make Nominet an even better place to work, we’ve improved our results from the previous year.

The event also saw the launch of a Best Companies guide web site that allows you to compare prospective employers and find out if the recruitment blurb is matched by reality. I can see this becoming a useful job hunters resource:

http://www.bestcompaniesguide.co.uk/index.php

No escaping domain names though - it was good to catch up with a retired Nominet registrar who was also at the event :o)

Yesterday ICANN announced that they are proposing to remove their five-day ‘Add Grace Period’ which previously allowed registrars to rectify errors when registering new domain names without cost. Due to serial abuse of this facility by speculators testing the profitability of domain names through advertising revenues, ICANN will instead debit the payment as soon as the domain name is registered.

Although this change will clearly deter tasters from registering high volumes of domains speculatively, it will also make the process of registering less flexible for registrars. It remains to be seen exactly how the new process will work, but it is probably safe to assume that if the registrar has to pay these costs upfront they will ultimately be passed to their customers.

When we took steps against domain tasting in August 2006, we decided to introduce limits on the number of domains a registrar could delete. Our limit for deletions to rectify spelling errors etc is five domains or 5% of the total number of domains registered but not yet invoiced (whichever is higher) but the limit for practices such as domain tasting is zero, and the limits form part of our registrar agreement, the formal contract that all our registrars sign up to. We believe this solution is neater, as it effectively counters the practice of domain tasting but at the same time allows some flexibility for registrars where genuine errors have occurred.

In a separate move, Google announced last week that they will start to monitor domain names that are repeatedly registered and dropped within the current five-day grace period, and exclude them from their AdSense program. Such a move would clearly strike at the heart of the problem. If tasters stop receiving revenues for pay-per-click ads associated with the domains they are testing, they will soon stop trying.

Both proposals have their merits, and it is encouraging to see that concerted efforts are being made from various sectors within the industry that could herald the beginning of the end of this practice.

You may have seen already our post on Domain Name Front Running (DNFR) since when things have got much more interesting.

Our original post explained our position that we have seen no evidence of DNFR and regard it as an inevitable consequence of a global market.  Network Solutions actually commented on that post saying they thought it did exist and needed to be tackled urgently as consumer confidence was being eroded.

Their response, which you probably have heard about, was to change their domain lookup tools so that any non-existent domain looked up through their site was automatically locked by them for four days so that nobody else could register it.  You as the customer who found it could register it, but only through Network Solutions and they are clear they will not be monetising the domain before then.

So, if you have not spotted it, they appear to be front running to protect end users from front running.

The second irony is slightly more oblique.  .com suffers dreadfully from the actions of domain tasters, who register huge volumes of domains and then cancel them before the grace period.  The mechanisms for deciding what domains to process in this way are largely algorithmic - how long was it registered for, when was it cancelled, how many clicks did it get in the tasting period.

Once a domain has entered the domain tasting merry-go-round it can be difficult for it to get off.  As soon as one taster lets it go another one picks it up because it meets the criteria for automatic registration.

So there is a possibility that the Network Solutions action could lead to a domain being picked up by tasters once Network Solutions drop the domain.  In that case the consumer who wanted it but decided they did not want to get it from Network Solutions would effectively lose it forever as it would now be on the taster radar.

Following the announcement in November from auDA, the Australian registry, of its one millionth .au domain name, it was pleasing to note this week that the French registry, AFNIC, has passed the one million mark on its register. They have been experiencing strong growth since liberalisation of their registration criteria. It is also further evidence of the growing popularity and increased usage of country code domain names.