News and Updates

December’s top DNW Stories

Domain Name Wire - Tue, 2019-01-08 20:16

Happy New Year!

December was a slow month in the domain name business but there was still a bit of news. Here are the top five stories on DNW last month.

1. NBC registers domain names for sports betting – is NBC getting ready for sports betting or were these domain registrations just defensive?

2. Marriott’s poor choice of domain for email notification – looks like a phishing email to many people.

3. GMO is sending expired domains to GoDaddy Auctions – GoDaddy picked up another top 10 registrar. I wonder if Enom will transition in 2018 now that Tucows sold off its share of NameJet to

4. GoDaddy tests new branding on Afternic landers – The GoDaddy logo is front and center.

5. Four ways to improve the GoDaddy aftermarket – GoDaddy has the dominant domain name aftermarket. It could be better.

And here are the DNW podcasts from December:

#213 – Understanding .Brand domains

#214 – Domain predictions – who was right?

#215 – 7 reasons companies need a great domain

#216 – The Fake Domain Broker

#217 – 2018 in Review

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. NBC launching SeeSo streaming service?
  2. Supreme Court ruling leads to domain name bonanza
  3. Marriott’s poor choice of domain for email notification
Categories: News and Updates

What 2018’s poor stock market return could mean for domain names

Domain Name Wire - Tue, 2019-01-08 16:33

If the economy heads south, be ready with cash on the sidelines.

The S&P 500 total return (including dividend reinvestment) was negative last year. That’s the first time this has happened since the bottom fell out in 2008.

We can’t predict the future but people tend to use the recent past as guidance. This means 2019 could be a challenging year.

I’ve talked to several friends recently who said, “Well, it looks more and more likely we’re heading into a recession soon”. It’s true that the stock market isn’t the economy and the job market is great, but people see all sorts of challenges ahead: whipsawing asset prices, a dysfunctional and unpredictable government, tapering of fiscal and monetary expansion, etc.

And when perceptions go negative, people pull back, bringing the economy with them.

Broader economic conditions play a role in the domain name business. Some can be countercyclical, such as people starting a new online business when they lose their job. Others, such as reduced VC funding, can lead to fewer big domain purchases.

When a domain investor’s fortune wanes, this can present a buying opportunity. Cash is king in downturns.

I have no idea if 2019 will be a tough year, one where we tread water, or maybe the good times return. But the old adage is always true: buy low, sell high.


© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

No related posts.

Categories: News and Updates

Internet Governance Outlook 2019: Innovative Multilateralism vs. Neo-Nationalistic Unilateralism

Domain industry news - Tue, 2019-01-08 16:10

What says the "Crystal Ball" for the Internet Governance Ecosystem in 2019? In a best case scenario, we will take three steps to Cyber-Heaven. In the worst case scenario we will take three steps to Cyber-Hell. The middle way is no "digital big bang", but some small "digital goodies" and some small "digital disasters". Stumbling further forward into the digital cyberworld. However, 2019 could also go into the history books as the year of "digital wisdom". More than half a dozens of think tanks, global commissions, high-level panels, working groups and review teams will table in the coming 12 months reports with ideas, proposals, recommendations and long "to do lists" for governments, the private sector, civil society and the technical community how to keep the Internet Governance Ecosystem free, open, stable, innovative and unfragmented.

The Internet Governance Knowledge Factories

It will start already in January 2019 when the "Global Commission on the Future of Work", chaired by the Swedish prime minister Sven Löfgren and the President of South Afrika, Ramaphosa, will present its final report. The International Labour Organisation (ILO), which has asked for the report, celebrates in summer its 100th anniversary. It hopes to get an answer from the Commission how to secure "decent and sustainable work" for everybody in tomorrows digital world. In May 2019 we expect the final report of the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation (HLP.DC). The Panel was established in June 2018 by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The expectation is that the Panel chaired by Melinda Gates from the Microsoft Foundation and Jack Ma from Alibaba, will offer some new ideas, how to organize the digital cyberworld. At the end of the year, the Global Commission on Stabiliy in Cyberspace (GCSC), chaired by the former Estonian Foreign Minister Marina Kaljurand, will present another report on Cybersecurity.

Furthermore, on the 2019 agenda, there are reviews of Sir Tim Barners-Lee project of a new "Contract for the Web", of the "Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace", of Microsoft's "Tech Accord" and Siemens' "Charter of Trust". The French G7 Presidency has announced a report about Artifical Intelligence. They are expert meetings as the "3rd Global Conference of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network" (June 2019 in Berlin), "Rights Con" (May 2019 in Tunis) or the "6th World Internet Conference" (November 2019 in Wuzhen). The High-Level UN Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI-Forum) will have a special meeting on how to digitalize the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in New York in May 2019. And over the year there will be dozens of national and regional IGFs around the globe which will pave the way for the 14th UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Germany, November 25 — 29, 2019 and will feed the expected "Messages from Berlin". With other words, at the end of 2019 will have a lot of more knowledge about the state of the art of the Internet Governance Ecosystem as we have today.

What we will do with all this knowledge? Will 2019 become the starting point for a conceptual re-thinking how to approach global Internet Governance and how to frame the ongoing and very diversified negotiations on cyber and digital issues into an interconnected process which could lead to a "New Deal" on global Internet Governance in the 2020s?

A New Internet Governance Controversy

If we review the 2018 Internet Governance debates, we see two different developments, which could lead to a new Internet Governance controversy:

On the one hand, there is a growing number of stakeholders who recognize that the flexibility of the existing Internet Governance Ecosystem needs more stability and that means also regulation. But, as UN Secretary-General Guterres said at the IGF in Paris, this does not mean traditional forms of regulation, as we know from the 20th-century diplomacy. "Discussion on Internet Governance cannot just remain discussion", said Guterres in Paris "Policy, and when relevant normative frameworks, must be developed to ensure impact. We cannot leave our fate in the digital era to the invisible hand of the market force. But the classical form of regulation does not apply to many of this new generation of challenges. Non-traditional, multilateral and multi-stakeholder cooperation will be crucial, including governments, the private sector, research centers, and civil society".

This was echoed by the French president Emanuel Macron, who called for an "innovative Multilateralism". I believe, said Macron in Paris "that the Internet we take for granted is under threat… In the name of freedom, we have allowed so many enemies of freedom to advance in the open, we have allowed them to enter all our systems, giving them the impression that they had the same right as the other just as they trampled over what brought us together… That is also why I believe we need to move away from the false possibilities we are currently offered whereby only two models would exist: that on the one hand of completed self-management without governance and that of the compartmented Internet entirely monitored by strong and authoritarian states… We, therefore, need through regulation to build this new path where governments, along with Internet players, civil societies and all actors are able to regulate properly. ... We need to invent — innovate — new forms of multilateral cooperation that involve not only states but also all of the stakeholders".

And indeed, more and more private companies — from Microsoft to Siemens — understand, that a stable regulatory framework, designed in the right way, will not stifle freedom and innovation. On the contrary, a stable Internet Governance Framework, supported by multistakeholder mechanisms, will become a big enabler for innovation and creativity based on established rights and freedoms.

On the other hand, there is a growing number of governments who do not believe anymore in common multilateral arrangements on the global level. The key words here are "My country, first", "Cybersovereignty", and "National Internet Segment". This neo-nationalistic unilateralism can be seen both in the policies of big cyberpowers as China, Russia and the US, but also by members of the G20 or even the European Union as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Poland or Hungary. Laws on data-localization, on content control and cybersecurity are mushrooming and undermine the existing Internet rights and freedoms. Freedom House has titled its 2018 report, "The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism". Freedom House has analyzed the state of Internet Freedom in 65 countries (representing more than 80 percent of the world's Internet users) and concluded that the situation in 26 countries has worsened. What is declared very often as an "internal affair" of a country to enhance national security and to fight against crime, can have side-effects for the global Internet Governance ecosystem. Just to take a recent example: The new Russian law on the national Internet segment is aimed to make Russia more resilient against interference from abroad, but the unclear ideas of the development of a new DNS and a separate Internet root server system can have effects on the functioning of the global Domain Name System, which connects four billion Internet users around the globe.

Even the US government, for decades a fighter for freedom of the Internet, has translated its "America First" approach into a National Cyber Strategy which pays lip service to the multistakeholder Internet Governance cooperation, but refuses to sign the "Paris Call for Trust and Security on Cyberspace". The US government has declared that it agrees with the values of the "Paris Call", but it wants to keep a free hand if it comes to commitments in cyberspace.

The confusing reality is that the Paris Call is signed now by 100 governments and more than 1000 non-state actors. Signatories are, inter alia, all EU member states, including the United Kingdom and many US companies as Facebook, Google and Microsoft. The "No" comes from the governments of China, Russia and also from the US. The big Chinese Internet giants as Alibaba, Baidu, Tencent or Huawei have also refused so far to sign the "Paris Call". Chinese corporations also ignored Microsoft's "Tech Accord" or Sir Tim Barners-Lees call for a "Contract for the Web".

In this new political constellation, we have on the one side efforts based on the idea of an "innovative Multilateralism" and on the other side activities based on the concept of a "neo-nationalistic Unilateralism". This could contribute to a growing Internet Governance confusion. And this will further complicate efforts to stabilize cyberspace by global arrangements, based on a common set of values as the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the WSIS Tunis Agenda and the NetMundial Statement.

Towards a "New Deal" for global Internet Governance

The controversy of "innovative Multilateralism" vs. "neo-nationalistic Unilateralism" could dominate the global Internet Governance debate in the coming years. This global debate has already started in the early 1990s. It circled in the first years around the management of critical Internet resources. But since the Tunis Agenda from 2005, which introduced the "multistakeholder approach", the discussion has moved into all fields of global policy-making: from security to trade to human rights. It was a technical issue with political implications 20 years ago. Now it is a political issue with a technical component.

This has consequences for policy making and regulation. The "Zeitgeist" has changed. The recent initiatives by state and non-state actors, mentioned above, signal a growing recognition, that a "New Deal" for Internet Governance is needed. Such a "New Deal" will not replace the "Old Deal" — as manifested in the Tunis Agenda — but will introduce an additional layer into the Internet Governance arrangements. This "New Deal" will not be negotiated overnight. But with the WSIS+20 (2025) on the horizon, it would make sense to start such a process rather soon. 2019 could become the year, where the Internet Governance agenda for the 2020s is drafted.

In the field of cybersecurity, we will see in 2019 two new UN groups. A small UN Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE) and a larger Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG). Both groups have a rather similar mandate: To look how international law should be applicated in cyberspace and how norms and confidence-building measures can contribute to enhanced security in cyberspace. The UNGGE is based on a US proposal, the OEWG is based on a Russian proposal. How the two groups will communicate, coordinate and collaborate is unclear. The OEWG has to report back in 2020, the UNGGE in 2021.

There is another Group of Governmental Experts which deals with Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS GGE). This group was established two years ago and is moving now into a critical phase. After the first series of meetings have cleared a number of conceptual questions, the group has now to give more concrete answers, how such new weapon systems should be handled by the international community: Should there be a new treaty? Should there be a moratorium? Should there be a "laissez faire", a "carte blanche" for the development of killer robots and military drones?

Furthermore, with rising cybercrime the question, whether there is a need for a global treaty against cybercrime, will not go away. The Council of Europe Budapest Cybercrime Convention from 2001 is a very good instrument, which is also signed by many non-European states. However, it is ratified only by around 70 states and big cyberpowers as Brazil, India, China and Russia did not sign the convention. Russian did now introduce a new proposal into the 3rd Committee of the UN General Assembly, but the readiness of UN member states, to kick-start new treaty negotiations is very low. The issue will be further studied and remains on the agenda, but progress will be slow.

In the digital economy, the world is also waiting for progress within and outside the World Trade Organisations (WTO). UNCTADs activities have produced a lot of ideas, how digital trade can be further enhanced and how the digitalization can contribute to the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) until 2030. However, concrete progress in the intergovernmental negotiations remains limited. Even AliBabas "eWorld Trade Platform" (eWTP), an initiative which was started to speed up eCommerce with developing countries and bypassing slow intergovernmental proceedings, does so far not meet the high expectations, which emerged when Jack Ma presented his plans at the World Economic Forum in Davos two years ago. Nevertheless, Alibaba itself is moving forward with the opening of a new European Hub in Lüttich and cooperative arrangements with Rwanda. The European and African market is calling and Alibaba is coming!

The fear is that the next moves will go into the wrong direction and we will see in 2019 digital trade wars and Chinese-American wrestling to get more influence in the digitalization of Africa. That eCommerce produces big opportunities for the African continent to leapfrog into the digital economy is unquestionable. The new BRICS Partnership for the 4th Industrial Revolution (PARTNIR), which was established in December 2018 in Johannesburg, has big plans and great potential. But there is also a risk, that African countries can be sandwiched in the competition between the Chinese "Digital Silk Road" and the new US "Prosper Africa" plan.

In the field of human rights, there is also a mixed situation. In 2018 the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has rocked the boat. Many non-European governments, but also many private corporations, got a wake-up call that data protection is an issue one cannot ignore anymore in cyberspace. On the other hand, the idea of the Special UN Rapporteur on Privacy in the Digital Age, Joseph Catanacci, to kick start a process for a new global legal instrument, has only little support within the UN Human Rights Council. There is a lot of lip service on data protection, but there are deep cultural gaps around privacy.

The situation is similar if it comes to fake news and hate speech. There is a broad consensus, that something has to be done. But to outsource the responsibility for the removal of bad content to private corporations cannot be the final solution. There is a need to strengthen the role of neutral third parties. To develop an independent online-judiciary for controversial content related cases is a big challenge and would need next to good political will also a lot of creativity. But why independent panelists could not do a better job than the thousands of small censors, hired by Facebook?

In the field of emerging technologies, number one on the priority list for 2019 will be Artificial Intelligence (AI). The issue is not new and we have already a number of instruments as the Toronto Declaration or the Brussels Guidelines from "The Public Voice" But in 2018 the issue is moved onwards on the political and economic agendas of the big powers. Everybody wants to become now a leader in AI. The G7 Multistakeholder Conference on AI on December 6, 2018, in Montreal, marked just a new starting point. The French President Macron has already announced that AI will be a key issue of the French G7 presidency in 2019.

Another big issue will be the Internet of Things. Part of the discussion is how to identify the billions of objects if they are connected to the Internet. The Digital Object Architecture (DOA) is controversial and still in its infant stage. But now there is another related issue which emerges as the result of the rapid growth of civilian drones. There is a need to have an identifier system for such "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles" (UAV). ITU-T together with other standardization organizations, including the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) has started to discuss new solutions. There is some political dynamite in such developments.

New controversies could also emerge around the new protocols for DNS over HTTPS. ICANN moved out of the political spotlight when it completed its IANA transition in 2016. But with new developments which could affect the stability and security of the public core of the Internet, the DNS, the IP-address and routing-systems etc., ICANN could be pulled back into the Internet Governance line of fire.

Written by Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor Emeritus at the University of Aarhus

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Internet Governance, Policy & Regulation

Categories: News and Updates

Beware the imposter domain broker

Domain Name Wire - Tue, 2019-01-08 15:01

An imposter pretended to be another domain broker. Here are some tips to avoid becoming a victim.

On Christmas Eve I published a podcast with Bill Sweetman of Name Ninja. Bill told the story of how someone pretending to be domain name broker Tracy Fogarty of eNaming tried to dupe him out of $10,000. Bill didn’t bite.

Since publishing that podcast, I have learned that this imposter reached out to at least three people total. The scammer pitched a handful of domain names with a lower case L replacing the upper case I at the beginning of the word. A reverse Whois report at DomainIQ shows that these pointed to the nameserver The names include,,, and

All three of the people I’m aware of being contacted are sophisticated domain experts and wouldn’t fall for a scam like this.

Here’s a summary of some of the suggestions Bill made on the podcast (with some of my additional tips) to avoid becoming a victim of a scam like this.

  • Double check the domain name to make sure it’s not faked (or an internationalized domain name). Copy and paste the domain into a plain text word editor.
  • Check the email address that sent the domain. Does it match what you’d expect? Try emailing the person at their normal email address rather than replying to the email. In the imposter case, the email address was, which is unusual. Sweetman noted, “The main brokers representing domains for sale rarely, rarely will use that domain name for their email address.”
  • Think if the offer is it too good to be true.
  • Check the signature file on the email. Does it have a phone number or other contact method? “Typically, brokers make themselves available to be reached, especially by phone,” Sweetman said.
  • Is the seller in a real hurry to get the deal done? While there might be a legitimate reason, be cautious if someone makes you move fast.
  • Use an escrow service and be wary if the other party doesn’t want to. “That’s why using an escrow service is so important because it protects all the parties,” Sweetman said. “It protects the buyer, it protects the seller. It to some degree protects the domain.”
  • Check the domain owner listed in a purchase agreement and make sure it matches who you think owns the domain. Do a Whois lookup if possible.
  • Check the domain history including Whois history for the ownership history.

© 2018. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. The Chinese trademark domain name scam in its entirety
Categories: News and Updates

Sedo Names a New CEO - Matthias Conrad Takes the Reins from Tobias Flaitz

DN Journal - Tue, 2019-01-08 14:47
The new year began with a new CEO at the helm at Sedo. Internet industry veteran Matthias Conrad now leads the popular domain sales and monetization platform.
Categories: News and Updates

Who Played a Major Role in Advancing the Internet? Nominations Open for 2019 Internet Hall of Fame

Domain industry news - Tue, 2019-01-08 01:00

Do you know someone who has played a major role in the development and advancement of the Internet? Now is the time to recognize their contribution. Nominate them for the 2019 Internet Hall of Fame.

With more than 100 inductees, the Internet Hall of Fame celebrates Internet pioneers and innovators who have pushed the boundaries to bring the Internet to life and make it an essential resource for billions of people today.

The Internet Hall of Fame, launched in 2012 by the Internet Society, recognizes:

  • Individuals who were instrumental in the design and development of the Internet with exceptional achievements that impacted the Internet's global advancement and evolution;
  • Individuals who made outstanding technological, commercial, or other advances and helped to expand the Internet's positive impact on the lives of others;
  • Individuals who made major contributions to the growth, connectivity, and use of the Internet, either on a global scale or within a specific region that resulted in global impact.

For more information or to make a nomination, visit

The deadline for nominations is 8 March 2019.

Please help us spread the news and share this message with your networks and contacts. If you have any questions, please email

Written by Dan York, Author and Speaker on Internet technologies - and on staff of Internet Society

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: DNS, Email, Internet Governance, Internet of Things, Internet Protocol, IPv6, Mobile Internet, Networks, Policy & Regulation, Web

Categories: News and Updates

Year in review: Scientology, Mugshots, Dropbox and GoDaddy

Domain Name Wire - Mon, 2019-01-07 17:45

More top stories from 2018.

I have reviewed the top stories on DNW in 2018 over the past couple of weeks. Most of these were based on high-level topics but there were some one-off stories that also landed at the top. Here they are:

Take a look at The Church of Scientology’s domain names – The controversial organization registers a lot of domain names of both its leadership and its detractors.

Sahar Sarid arrested on charges related to – The domain investor is in hot water after the California Attorney General filed charges.

How Dropbox got the domain name – It wasn’t easy! Dropbox co-founder Drew Houston explained the story to Tim Ferriss.

This GoDaddy Premium Domain change could help you sell a lot more domains – GoDaddy expanded the promotional real estate for premium domains. It added valuations and reasons why a domain is premium. GoDaddy also closed an expiring domain loophole last year.

© 2018. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Panama, Sherpas and the Domain Market with Andrew Rosener – DNW Podcast #180
  2. John Pollard: How to grow the usage of domain names – DNW Podcast #188
  3. 2019 Predictions – DNW Podcast #218
Categories: News and Updates

Company tries to hijack domain name

Domain Name Wire - Mon, 2019-01-07 17:07

Venture capital and accelerator company tries to get through cybersquatting dispute.

VC tried to get domain.

A California company has been found to have attempted reverse domain name hijacking of the domain name

Plug & Play, LLC, a California venture capital firm that runs 50 accelerators around the world, tried to get the domain name from its rightful owner by claiming he was cybersquatting. The Complainant uses the domain name

The case was going to be difficult to win even without looking at the details: “plug and play” is a common technology term that has been used extensively in marketing.

But it’s the details that led to World Intellectual Property Organization panelist W. Scott Blackmer determining that Plug & Play, LLC filed the case in abuse of the policy. The key issue is that the Complainant didn’t even exist when the domain owner registered the domain name. This means it was impossible for the domain owner to register the domain in bad faith to target the Complainant.

Blackmer wrote:

A finding of RDNH is warranted, for example, when a panel finds that the complainant (especially one represented by counsel) should have recognized that it could not succeed on one of the three elements of the complaint under any fair interpretation of the available facts or brings a complaint based “on only the barest of allegations without any supporting evidence” (id.). That is the case here, where the Domain Name, based on a common English phrase, was created before the Complainant business was even formed, and the Respondent already had its own established business with a corresponding name. The Complainant failed to investigate these obvious difficulties, and its Supplemental Filing then overlooked facts (prominently, the relationships between the successive Domain Name registrants) that were available even in the Response and its attachments. Hence, the Panel grants the request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

The domain owner also alleged that Plug & Play tried to mislead the panel by omitting emails showing that the Complainant initiated discussions about buying the domain name, rather than the other way around. It appears that the domain owner offered to sell the domain for $100,000-$150,000, which seems like a very fair price for this domain.

© 2018. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Zak Muscovitch gets reverse domain name hijacking win
  2. Fertilizer company tries reverse domain name hijacking
  3. Defunct app maker hit with reverse domain name hijacking
Categories: News and Updates

2019 Predictions – DNW Podcast #218

Domain Name Wire - Mon, 2019-01-07 16:30

A look forward to 2019.

It’s 2019! As we ring in the New Year, I give my predictions for 2019. We’ll also hear predictions from 18 people from across the spectrum of domain names: domain registrars, registries, domain investors and more. Listen to predictions from:

Kellie Peterson (Automattic/
Doron Vermaat (Efty)
Mike Gargiulo (
Mariah Reilly (Donuts)
Christa Taylor (dotTBA)
Giuseppe Graziano (
Roland LaPlante (Afilias)
Rick Schwartz (Domain King)
Jason Eisler (.Club)
Elisa Cooper (Brandsight)
Marco Hoffmann (InternetX)
Lori Anne Wardi (Neustar)
Mike Ambrose (XYZ)
Peter Van Roste (CENTR)
Soeren von Varchmin (NamesCon/WHD)
Tobias Sattler (United Domains)
Todd Han (Dynadot)
Zak Muscovitch (Internet Commerce Association)

Subscribe via iTunes to listen to the Domain Name Wire podcast on your iPhone or iPad, view on Google Play Music, or click play above or download to begin listening. (Listen to previous podcasts here.)

© 2018. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Domain investing with Shane Cultra – DNW Podcast #164
  2. 5 things Mike Cyger learned – DNW Podcast #196
  3. 48 domains, $114k sales on $3400 investment – DNW Podcast #211
Categories: News and Updates

Typosquatting as Per Se Cybersquatting Unless Proved Otherwise

Domain industry news - Mon, 2019-01-07 15:03

The quintessence of typosquatting is syntactical variation: adding, omitting, replacing, substituting, and transposing words and letters. Recent examples include <citizens1loans> (numeral for word), <> (double vowels), <> (pluralizing/possessive), and (reversing letters), and <amazø> (look carefully at the letter following "z"). Since these minor variations are mostly indefensible, respondents rarely respond to complaints, although as I will explain in a moment there can also be innocent and good faith syntactical variations which are not typosquatting. It follows that if there are defenses, respondents should prudently respond and explain their choices because default generally favors complainants. It is not out of the realm of possibility, for example, that singularizing or pluralizing dictionary words or common phrases creates names that could be used by others with distinctive noninfringing associations.</amazø>

With some shading of one purpose merging into the other, typosquatting runs the gamut from malicious to mischievous. The Panel in Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA1811001819070 (Forum December 27, 2018) describes typosquatting as "a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the resulting string in a domain name hoping that internet users will either: 1) inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services related to the domain name's target trademark; and/or 2) in viewing the domain name will confuse the domain name with its target trademark" (emphasis added).

The Amazon Panel could also have said it is not just "internet users" who are deceived, since typosquatting domain names are also used to conceal abusive conduct through emails, for a malicious or criminal purpose. In one respect typosquatting is more devious than plain vanilla cybersquatting (which openly mimics marks) because registrants are using variations to deceive those who accept their authenticity; although to the alerted, these kinds of variations also raise suspicion of actual knowledge of the targeted mark. When respondents default the inference of actual knowledge is heightened to a finding of abusive registration, regardless whether the domain name is passively held or resolves to an active website.

Spoofing and phishing typographic registrations are illustrated in Shipco Transport Inc. v. WhoIsGuard, Inc. / Joel Kelvin, D2018-2374 (WIPO December 13, 2018) (<> (double "i") and Robert Half International Inc. v. Dean Sapp, FA1811001816127 (Forum December 20, 2018) (<> (omit "t").

In Shipco, the Complainant "provided unchallenged evidence" the domain name was created to be deceptive with criminal intent. Crafted to spoof. It involved intercepting

an exchange of email correspondence between a member of the Complainant's group of companies, Shipco Transport Vietnam Limited, and one of its customers in São Paulo, Brazil. The third party then, using the above email addresses, sent emails to the customer, impersonating Shipco Transport Vietnam Limited and managed to divert payment to the third party's bank account.

In Robert Half it was phishing rather than spoofing:

Complainant alleges Respondent attempts to impersonate Complainant as part of an email phishing scheme, presumably for commercial gain" and "provide[d] a copy of the phishing email that was sent out by Respondent. The Panel finds this is evidence that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The ploy is simple. Respondents rely on email recipients' inattention to the typo mistakes in the domain name addresses and respond as though the imposters were the mark owners. A variant of the typographic change, in the malicious bucket, is illustrated in Teleflex Incorporated v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA1811001818748 (Forum December 28, 2018) (<>. The challenged domain name incorporates Complainant's mark but instead of the typographic change being in the mark it appears in the domain name. Complainant's official domain name in <>. Although the domain name resolves to a website (rather than passively held) it can as easily be used as an email to deceive employees to disclose private information.

In two recent other cases, registrants introduced an unexpected variation to the typosquatting pallet, combining letters on the left and right hand sides of the Qwerty keyboard, A Medium Corporation v. Marat Mukhamet, D2018-1860 (WIPO October 8, 2018) (<> and Merial v. VisaPrint Technologies c/o Vistaprint North American Services Corp., D2018-2157 (WIPO November 11, 2018) (<>). Respondents combined "r" and "n" to create the impression of the final "m" in the first and the initial "m" in the second.

In Merial, the Panel held

Although it would be "most improbable that anyone would type 'r' followed by 'n' when intending to type 'm', given the positions of these letters on a keyboard" nevertheless "a URL or Internet domain name containing the disputed domain name '' would be easily confused for the letters <>."

The more usual typographic variation, though, and the majority of typosquatting disputes involve doubling or omitting letters and transposing vowels and consonants. If we were to ask for what purpose the variations are registered, we would have to say they are exploitative in intent. Even if not malicious or passively held they are injurious for simply having the potential of deception.

The majority of those I'm calling mischievous (this is also true of plain vanilla cybersquatters) are doing nothing but occupying locations in cyberspace (literally, squatters). Even if not overtly exploitative they are nevertheless intentionally infringing third party rights. In the Amazon case, "Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website displaying competing click-through links." That factor alone is sufficient for forfeiture. (The Panel noted that Complainant did not specifically argue typosquatting. Respondent swapped the "o" in AMAZON for the Unicharacter "ø").

But the consensus is clear that typosquatting as the primary factor is sufficient where respondents passively hold domain names, unless proved otherwise. In Solar Turbines Incorporated v. Records Docs, FA1811001815222 (Forum December 7, 2018) (, omitting an "r" of Solar) the Panel held that "[a]ctual knowledge by a respondent of a complainant's mark is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)." Inference of actual knowledge (as I noted above) is drawn from the factual circumstances which includes the strength of the mark and the likelihood of confusion. Here, the Panel continued:

[T]he close and obvious misspelling of Complainant's SOLAR TURBINES mark in the <> domain name as well as Complainant's long-term prior use of the mark shows that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark.

Other factors contributing to or supporting inferences of bad faith include multiple, adjudicated infringements. In <> Complainant alleged that respondent "has been involved in at least eighty-six (86) prior UDRP cases which have resulted in the transfer of domain names to named complainants." Citizens Financial Group, Inc. v. ZHICHAO YANG, FA181100 1817275 (Forum January 1, 2019) (<>).

While adding, omitting, transposing, and substituting letters and words are the obvious examples of bad faith, a variant less obvious is replacing one dictionary word for another. In TD Ameritrade IP Company, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA181000 1814302 (Forum November 28, 2018) the difference is between "advisor" (as in ADVISOR CLIENT} and "adviser" (as in <adviser>). Depending on the facts and explanations for close proximity of meaning, it could be argued that "adviser client" (registered in 2004 and renewed in 2018) is no less distinctive than ADVISOR CLIENT and could have been lawfully registered and used.

However, Respondent did not appear. This triggers the inference of abusive registration. Although in this case, the Panel did not rely simply on the difference between an "e" and an "o" but invoked bad faith use (the content factor) for the final nail:

Respondent's bad faith is further indicated by its use of the domain to link to third-party, competing websites in an attempt to gain commercially by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website.

Nevertheless, this case and its outcome highlights the penalty of default and raises the intriguing possibility that there could have been an explanation that would have rebutted the claim of abusive registration. (A similar possibility for an explanation of good faith arose in the forfeiture of <>, an award which is presently being challenged in federal court under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act).

Not all typographic mistakes that rights holders claim as abusive registrations are what they believe them to be. Some domain name holders specialize in misspelling dictionary words. Two examples are <>, Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Administrator, Domain / Vertical Axis, Inc., FA110400 1383694 (Forum May 31, 2011) and <> (intended misspelling of "credit", Florim Ceramiche S.p.A. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID: 24391572426632, Whois Privacy Services Pty LTD / Domain Administrato, Vertical Axis Inc., D2015-2085 (WIPO February 11, 2016).

In Vanguard Trademark Holdings, Complainant alleges that <> is cybersquatting NATIONAL CAR RENTAL. The Panel disagreed: "[A] respondent is free to register a domain name consisting of misspelling of common terms where there is little or no other evidence of the elements of 'bad faith.'" The Panel held:

The word "national" is common and generic, and therefore, Complainant does not have an exclusive monopoly on the term on the Internet. It, therefore, has no exclusive right to a misspelling, "natiional."

In Florim Ceramiche, the Panel held that

The Respondent indeed appears to have registered hundreds of generic dictionary term domain names and numerous domain names incorporating typographical variations of English dictionary words. To substantiate its claim, the Respondent has listed in its Response 20 domain names incorporating the term "credit" and 10 domain names incorporating typographical variations of dictionary words.

In all cybersquatting disputes, the appearance of bad faith must be tested against facts that establish the actuality of abusive registration. If there is no persuasive targeting of complainant's mark the claim must fail. Credibility is more obviously a factor for respondent; it must explain its choice. In Florim Ceramiche, for example, Respondent showed that it held numerous misspellings in its portfolio; in Medium, Respondent failed to explain its misspelling. As a general rule, the stronger the mark the likelier the domain name is intentionally targeting it even if knowledge of the mark is denied. As marks descend the classification scale, the likelier the registration is lawful, with this proviso that even with weak marks it cannot be ruled out that allegations of typosquatting come with a strong tailwind of plausibility and are likely to favor complainant. This is because seemingly miss-typed words suggest actual knowledge of the mark and unless persuasively rebutted the domain names will be canceled or transferred to the complainant. As with cybersquatting, where there is no persuasive use for the domain name that would not be infringing then the ineluctable conclusion is the registrant's purpose is to deceive.

Written by Gerald M. Levine, Intellectual Property, Arbitrator/Mediator at Levine Samuel LLP

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Domain Management, Domain Names, Law

Categories: News and Updates

NameBio adds 5 new features and paid accounts

Domain Name Wire - Mon, 2019-01-07 14:30

Power tools available with paid memberships.

Domain sales database NameBio added new features under paid memberships.

Domain names sales database Namebio has added the five most-requested features to its system under new paid tiers. The added features are:

1. Search sales history in bulk – run a list of domains through the bulk search to find out if they have sold before and for how much.

2. Save searches – get notifications when a domain name meeting your requirements sells.

3. Search sales under $100 – NameBio only shows sales results of $100 or more. Paid members will be able to see sub-$100 sales, which are typically expired domain auction sales.

4. Export search results – export results into Excel.

5. More results per search – paid tiers include up to unlimited results per search instead of the 100 for guest users and 150 for registered users.

The paid tiers are $10, $25 and $100 per month. The $25 Domainer tier is required to export search results and see domains under $100. This plan and the $100 plan also remove banner ads from the site. All plans also include discounts for listing featured domains on the site to get more exposure for them.

The new tools are compelling and I believe easily justified for the price.

NameBio published details and use cases in a blog post today.

© 2018. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. .Org sticks with Afilias for backend
  2. Verisign patents “Methods and systems for creating new domains”
  3. Digging into MMX and its earnings
Categories: News and Updates

Are We Ready to Defend Our Freedom? Book Review: "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism"

Domain industry news - Mon, 2019-01-07 04:54

It is not often that you read a book where afterward nothing seems the same again. Like Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, Shoshana Zuboff's book: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, (Publisher: PublicAffairs, Pub Date: Jan. 15th, 2019, ISBN: 978-1-61039-569-4), puts what we do in these times into a context and gives a focus to ongoing issues of privacy and governance with regard to the Domain Name System. This is even more astonishing as the book does not even mention the DNS, the Internet ecosystem or even Internet Governance directly.

Shoshana Zuboff describes how Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon and many other Internet-based firms are forging a new form of capitalism, one which she labels "Surveillance Capitalism." It is based on the monetizing of the digital tracking of human experience and is defined by a strategy whereby powerful corporations seek to predict (and control) our behavior as "a new market form that claims human experience as a free source of raw material for hidden commercial practices." Zuboff writes: "Every casual search, like, and click [becomes] an asset to be tracked, parsed, and monetized by some company." In Surveillance Capitalism, the data generated through the sale of, or even the browsing for, a product can have a higher value than the profits from the sale of the product. In the Capitalism of old, the trader sought to profit by fulfilling the needs and desires of customers. In the Surveillance Capitalism, the strategy changes. One's behavior is data mined. Perceived needs become the focus of targeted marketing. One's menu of consumer (and other) choices is shaped by surveillance of one's behavior.

This predatory use of personal data is not an inevitable result of digital technology. The technology is neither good nor bad. Its ethical performance comes from how we humans decide to use it. Zuboff describes in detail the events and concepts, marketed within the guise of a utopian vision for the internet, used to drive surveillance as the "dominant" shape of capitalism, and argues that in doing so is usurping "the peoples' right to a human future." By helping us understand our immediate past and evaluate the present, she encourages us to define our future. Like the prophets of old, Zuboff asks us to review our ways, to act wisely and to be engaged in the pursuit of a worthy future, one secured by asking what we need to know and how we decide the path forward.

Readers with an interest in the issues surrounding the Domain Name System will quickly realize that her book is highly relevant to issues of privacy, access and governance in the DNS ecosystem. Surveillance Capitalism uses the DNS with impunity and with scant interest in the integrity of that use. For Surveillance Capitalism the DNS is more than just a tool. It seeks unfettered access to the DNS and to manipulate it. It ultimately wants access independent of governance restrictions, other than protection for its own intellectual property. The attachment is not to the DNS itself. It is to the data facilitated by the existence of the DNS. Should the means develop to replace the DNS with something more suitable to their data needs, Surveillance Capitalism would jump ship, independent of the needs of other users.

The domain name industry lives less and less on the sale and management of domains. Additional revenue services target enhanced data collection. This is creating data dependencies and struggles for control. The Whois discussion is a harbinger, an early battle, around who has what access to what data. The Whois is just the precursor of many battles to come. It is important as it sets the opening tone for more and bigger battles to come, battles around the rights and obligations of persons, entities, and even governments, as enshrined in new forms of governance and embedded in social and cultural norms.

There is a need for vigilance, awareness and engagement! Surveillance Capitalism is active in our midst and operating to influence the evolution of Internet Governance. Its leaders and their minions can be found, pressing with force, at venues like the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the various UN digital commissions. Some fear that they are attempting to appropriate initiatives such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for their own their purposes. It is argued that they already behave like they own the Internet Governance agenda and do whatever they can to portray this harmful and dangerous situation as "the new normal".

With regard to the DNS the issues on the table are no longer just security and stability. The issues include what purpose is DNS ultimately to serve. Should the role of the DNS be mainly to facilitate connectivity and access, or should its main function be the collection and monetizing of user data in ways that compromise personal privacy and security? While one might have thought that this commercial data exploitation would never be allowed to come to pass, it has come to pass. It is outpacing personal privacy, security and governance efforts to set boundaries to what is acceptable and what is not. Social media and browser interests were the first to harness this data monetization bandwagon. Telecom companies are quickly succumbing to the charm (and profits) of Surveillance Capitalism.

The domain name industry is sitting in the cross-hairs of both powerful interests pushing to exploit data access, and public interests seeking to secure privacy and security under appropriate governance and rule of law. The challenge is how to engage public and private interests in the development of appropriate governance, at all levels of governance.

Society at the global and local level is at a crisis point. The digital promise has turned for some into a digital nightmare, with the possibility that risks go viral. The key to our digital future is how we as stakeholders react to the challenges and advances of Surveillance Capitalism.

Shoshana Zuboff masterfully lays out and analyses the situation, but she is intentionally short on solutions and actions beyond general principles. Determining how to resist and move forward is not the job of a single author. The book is a call to arms, a call to us that starts with raised awareness and heightened engagement.

How can we defend our freedom and take back our future? There are some simple steps we can take:

  1. We need awareness and capacity building in empowered digital citizenship for all digital citizens so that we question and unmask the core premises of Surveillance Capitalism, the notion that their access to the digital data of users is free, with unrestricted access and use.
  2. We need to decontaminate and rehabilitate the Internet Ecosystem, freeing it from the damaging and unhealthy manifestations of Surveillance Capitalism
  3. We need to establish sustainable digital business models that put the human at their center. This is possible since the profit center of Surveillance Capitalism is the unacceptable exploitation of the data of others.
  4. Regulation will be required but we have yet to grasp the properties of a healthy regime of Internet governance. Engagement is about more than pressing for good regulation, it is about simultaneously constructing good Internet governance.
  5. Lastly, governance and regulation are good but limited. Every sustainable culture, including the culture of the Internet ecosystem, evolves a social contract where we agree on acting responsibly, with integrity, and know when to say: "Enough is enough!"

Reading the book, we also realize that the social media barons of the world, and their clever minions, represent the opposite of what they try to make us believe. The world of Surveillance Capitalism is a world of smoke and mirrors, low in integrity and trust. Social media innovations distract from real social issues. Their data mining business model is unsustainable and harmful. The amassed riches are based on valuations that come from questionable data mining, and in large part from the promise of greater future data mining. They are highly anticompetitive with adverse effects on innovation. A better tomorrow calls for greater awareness and engagement today.

Lastly, readers be warned! The book is 700 pages long. Besides people with a deep interest in these topics, others will find it a lot to digest and may object to repetitive explanations. The Zuboff book is a call to creating a future, but the length of the book is an obstacle to the clarity of that call. Many will find it a challenging read. A companion volume would be useful, one which captures the essence of the book, and feedback, in under 200 pages. One way around its length is to read parts of the book that can stand alone. These include Chapter16: on the life of young people in a digital age (a must read for all parents); Chapter 10; Pokémon; and Chapter 18 on Freedom and principles of resistance.

There is something of value in the book for everybody. One can only hope that it is read as widely as possible. The more who read it and are moved to action, the brighter our future and more secure our freedoms.

Written by Klaus Stoll, Digital Citizen

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Cybersecurity, Domain Management, DNS, Internet Governance, Internet of Things, Net Neutrality, Policy & Regulation, Privacy

Categories: News and Updates

Third RDNH involving Indian law firm

Domain Name Wire - Fri, 2019-01-04 17:39

…and its managing partner is a WIPO panelist.

The Indian Hotels Company Limited, a subsidiary within The Tata Group of companies, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name

The decision isn’t surprising given the descriptive nature of the name and other factors. The three-member panel unanimously agreed that the Complainant abused the administrative proceeding by filing the case.

Here’s what’s particularly notable about the case: the Complainant was represented by Anand & Anand, a law firm in India. By my count, this is the third reverse domain name hijacking decision against this firm’s clients.

Even more concerning is that Pravin Anand, the firm’s managing partner, is a panelist for World Intellectual Property Organization. It’s not clear which attorneys at the firm filed the UDRP cases, but it’s troubling that it has been hit with three reverse domain name hijacking decisions, and extra troubling given that its managing partner serves as a panelist.

© 2018. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. An Arbitrator’s View of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
  2. UNiDAYS guilty of reverse domain name hijacking
  3. Stanley Pace sues for alleged Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Categories: News and Updates

Tobias Flaitz out as Sedo CEO

Domain Name Wire - Fri, 2019-01-04 16:39

Flaitz to be replaced by 1&1 veteran.

Matthias Conrad, new CEO of Sedo

Tobia Flaitz has left his post as CEO of domain name marketplace and parking platform Sedo after seven years in the role. He will be replaced by Matthias Conrad, who has held several VP positions at 1&1 Internet. 1&1 is part of United Internet, which also owns Sedo.

Flaitz has been CEO of Sedo since 2012 when he took over for co-founder Tim Schumacher. Flaitz steered the company through challenging times as the domain parking market continued to struggle and GoDaddy consolidated power in the domain aftermarket. He brought a unique perspective to the market because he came from outside the industry.

© 2018. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Six months in, Tobias Flaitz on the domain name industry
  2. Inside Sedo with CEO Tobias Flaitz
  3. Breaking: .Web top level domain name auction ends for $135 million
Categories: News and Updates

NameSilo hits $20 million in bookings for 2018

Domain Name Wire - Fri, 2019-01-04 14:43

Domain registrar continues to show solid growth.

Domain name registrar NameSilo (PINKSHEETS: NTCEF) is reporting that it had US $20.1 million in bookings during 2018. It defines bookings as cash received from new domain registrations, renewals and other services. Fourth quarter bookings were $5.4 million.

The registrar has been on a tear in recent years, especially after it was acquired last year. It is often among the top ten registrars in terms of new monthly .com domain registrations.

In a release, the company states that it added 420,000 domains under management (DUMs) last quarter across all top level domains. It says it’s the largest registrar for .ICU domains, so the DUMs are inflated a bit by inexpensive domains. But it had nearly 1.5 million .com domains as of the end of September, making it one of the top 15 domain name registrars overall for .com.

NameSilo reports that it has 240,000 customers.


© 2018. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Investment firm to acquire domain name registrar NameSilo
  2. NameSilo doubles in size in just one year, crosses 2 million domains
  3. GoDaddy sets IPO range, plans to raise $400M at up to $3B valuation
Categories: News and Updates

Another reason to not let your web developer register your domain name

Domain Name Wire - Fri, 2019-01-04 14:29

Even if they aren’t a bad person, something could happen to them.

I’ve written many times about disputes over domain names between web developers/designers and their clients. Usually, these are cases of a web developer registering the domain in his or her name and holding it hostage if the client ever wants to get control of the domain name. There are similar disputes with employees who register company names in their own name.

It might be difficult for a client to explain to their developer that they want to register a domain in their own name because they don’t necessarily trust the developer. So here’s another, simpler argument for always registering a domain in your company’s name rather than the developer’s: the developer might get hit by a bus.

In a recent National Arbitration Forum case, Ohio company Thermotion, LLC claimed that its web developer ceased operations, apparently because of the death of its operator. The company is now having difficulty getting control of the domain name. The case was denied because Thermotion didn’t show that the registrant lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain.

So the next time a web developer pushes back on who controls the domain name, clients have something other than “I don’t trust you not to screw me” as an argument. They can point to this case as an example in which the client couldn’t access the domain despite an apparent lack of mal intent by the developer.

© 2018. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Barbara Kingsolver Wins Domain Fight, Loser Not Happy
  2. Ready to Scream? After 14 Years, Guy Loses in UDRP
  3. Guy files UDRP against his brother
Categories: News and Updates

New Keynote Speakers Added to NamesCon Global 2019 Lineup

DN Journal - Fri, 2019-01-04 00:13
NamesCon Global has announced three additional keynote speakers for the show coming up January 27-30 in Las Vegas, bringing the total up to 5.
Categories: News and Updates

ITU-T Takes Lead on Drone IoT Identification in 2019

Domain industry news - Thu, 2019-01-03 20:36

In today's fast-paced world of IoT, perhaps one of the most significant involves the rapid identification of civilian drones — more formally known as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). The identification of civilian UAVs has become a critical public safety concern today. Establishing a flexible, trusted global means for identifying these objects through worldwide supply chains and resolving the identifier tags to a responsible party rapidly via a network-based resolver is a high priority.

UAV identification initiative

Tackling the identification problem requires getting a worldwide agreement on a common framework for globally unique identifier tags and a means for their resolution to authoritative tag information resources. The initiative to do that began in September 2017 with the introduction of a proposal by the China Electronics Standardization Institute (CESI) together with leading UAV vendors to the ITU-T's SG17 Security Group's committee on identifiers and X.509 digital certificates that has existed for decades — Q11/17 and now chaired by France's, Jean-Paul Lemaire. The Q11/17 group collaborates with an ISO/TC20/SC16 group known as "The ISO Unmanned Aircraft Systems Committee" which has itself undertaken the development of a broad array of UAV specifications. It also established the need for a unique UAV identifier.

Over the past year, the Q11/17 work progressed on the new standard designated X.sup-uav-oid, "Identification mechanism for unmanned aerial vehicles using object identifiers” - with most of the basic framework provisions complete. They await further inputs for an upcoming meeting in Geneva in a few weeks. The use case scenarios include the full supply chain life-cycle that includes local and national regulatory requirements, manufacturing, sale & logistics, repairing, and scrapping. The identifier platform chosen is the original universal IoT standard developed by the ITU-T and ISO now in widespread use over several decades for all manner of objects — Object Identifiers (OIDs). Trust provisions include the use of PKI digital certificates also within the remit of the committee.

Value proposition of the ITU-T venue

There are multiple compelling value propositions to proceeding with this initiative in the ITU-T that doubtlessly incented the UAV manufacturing community. One of the foremost reasons is that the ITU-T is an intergovernmental technical standards body whose sister body, the ITU-R also allocates the radio spectrum globally for UAVs. UAVs inherently give rise to some forms of governmental regulation — which makes an intergovernmental venue compelling.

The ITU-T also has peer intergovernmental relationships with other relevant bodies such as ICAO — the International Civil Aviation Organization - which last year held its second meeting of its Asia/Pacific Unmanned Aircraft Systems Task Force with a third planned for March — which has called for a UAV identifier framework.

The ITU also has UAV related collaboration underway with other user communities such as the World Meteorological Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization and is part of the global organization team that collaborates during times of natural disasters. The ITU also has multiple cooperative relationships with most other relevant regional and national industry bodies. Europe's CEPT organization, for example, has a joint ITU UAV planning activity in progress and called for an E-identification capability.

Additionally significant is that China's related electronics association and the leading UAV vendors — who supply most of the world market — are interested in developing a common global identifier framework that includes supply chain management, in the ITU-T.

Value proposition of the OID identifier platform

Object Identifiers (OIDs) were the brainchild of James E. White who played a leading role beginning in the early 1970s in developing numerous early network protocols within the DARPA research community at USCB and Stanford Research Institute — including the earliest digital object tagging systems for DOD Internet resource sharing.

White subsequently perfected the concepts during stints at Xerox PARC, SRI, 3COM, and Telenet — taking the ideas into CCITT/ISO committees he led during the 1980s to facilitate an array of core internetwork specifications for structured information exchange, software identification, network management, eMail, and PKI certificates — using a common critical mechanism he called Object IDentifiers or OIDs that are specified in Rec.ITU-T X.660 | ISO/IEC 9834-1. In the U.S., the Federal Government's GOSIP standards were based on OID use, and registration mechanisms were put in place.

Within the DARPA internet sphere, the DOD also adopted OIDs as Enterprise identifiers — which remain today the principal means for identifying companies, including software and digital certificates, and now numbering more than 50,000.

So why have OIDs been successful in the global IoT marketplace and why are they useful for identifying drones? It is worth noting that there are other IoT tagging frameworks available that notably include Electronic Product Codes. What makes OIDs attractive is that they are entirely open and have a simple numeric structure that is compact and enables many different kinds of implementations built around those structures. You can create structures that are oriented by country, by organization, by product sector — and they can all exist concurrently. The owner of the structure together with end users can also control the availability of information and trust levels. For example, ICAO itself uses identifiers under the OID 1.3.27 for its biometric passport platform. Microsoft's Outlook Express software uses identifiers under the OID

In addition to the compactness and flexibility, OIDs can be easily "resolved" to get the associated information in several ways. A web-based platform has long existed known as the OID Repository that can be queried with a simple URI or browsed through a hierarchical tree. The Repository is the brainchild of long-time OID/ASN.1 expert from France Telecom/Orange, Olivier Dubuisson — who has led support for the platform and evolution of ASN.1 for fast structured information exchange.

Nearly twenty years ago, the ability to do rapid, real-time resolutions was advanced when Verisign created an IETF standard for a DNS URN namespace. Nearly a decade ago, it began working with Korea's ETRI which subsequently developed and implemented a set of DNS based resolver specifications that include an Object identifier resolution system (X.672), OID-based resolution framework for heterogeneous identifiers and locators (X.675), and Object identifier-based resolution framework for IoT grouped services (X.676). User guides were included. Like the OID structure itself, these resolution systems are open, based on DNS standards, and can be implemented by anyone — which would likely be necessary to accommodate different national regulatory environments and requirements.

The increased use of OIDs by the healthcare sector ISO specifications has also enhanced the demand for real-time resolution — as has the increased use for enhanced digital certificate trust features, and some 5G network management capabilities.

Next steps

The adoption of an OID identification platform for civilian drones is only an initial step necessary to establish a common worldwide framework. The next steps will require additional specifications and implementations across multiple intergovernmental, standards bodies, national authorities and vendors. It should also encourage new innovations by vendors to manifest these capabilities in forms that are useful to meet governmental and marketplace use cases.

Written by Anthony Rutkowski, Principal, Netmagic Associates LLC

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Internet of Things, Policy & Regulation

Categories: News and Updates

NamesCon Global 2019 Preview: Last Tango in Las Vegas!

DN Journal - Thu, 2019-01-03 20:05
When NamesCon Global 2019 runs January 27-30 it will mark the end of an era - the last one in Las Vegas. We connected with the organizers to see what they have in store this month and beyond.
Categories: News and Updates

.Com Winners & Losers

Domain Name Wire - Thu, 2019-01-03 19:40

How domain name registrars performed in the latest official report.

ICANN has published the latest official data from Verisign (NASDAQ: VRSN) about the .com namespace. This registrar-by-registrar report covers September 2018.

Here’s how registrars did in terms of new .com registrations.

1.* (NYSE: GDDY) 868,031 (920,365 in August)
2. Tucows** (NASDAQ:TCX) 174,114 (200,563)
3. Xin Net Technology Corporation 170,284 (144,999)
4. Endurance+ (NASDAQ: EIGI) 143,179 (153,130)
5. NameCheap Inc. 139,581 (139,914)
6. Alibaba (HiChina) 133,156 (224,383)
7. 99,859 (103,022)
8. NameSilo 88,409 (86,955)
9. Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOGL) 85,550 (95,841)
10. 1&1 44,580 (47,333)

Here’s the leaderboard of the top registrars in terms of total .com registrations as of the end of September 2018. Base on trends, I suspect Google overtook GMO in October 2018.

1. GoDaddy* 49,079,269 (48,907,328 in August)
2. Tucows** 12,751,782 (12,816,784)
3. Endurance+ 7,335,322 (7,357,344)
4. 6,722,165 (6,722,545)
5. Alibaba 5,852,659 (5,813,977)
6. Namecheap 4,405,568 (4,354,411)
7. 1&1 3,688,497 (3,701,944)
8. Xin Net Technology Corporation 2,522,185 (2,376,346)
9. GMO 1,979,668 (1,993,491)
10. Google 1,953,943(1,903,695)

Many domain companies have multiple accreditations and I’ve tried to capture the largest ones. See the notes below.

* Includes GoDaddy and Wild West Domains
** Includes Tucows and Enom
+ Includes PDR,, FastDomain and Bigrock. There are other Endurance registrars, but these are the biggest.
++ Includes Network Solutions and

© 2018. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. .Com’s Top Registrars
  2. .Com Winners: Some shakeup in the top 10
  3. GoDaddy reports earnings, Domain revenue tops $300 million
Categories: News and Updates

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer