SIDN Offers Extra Protection for Domains Following Recent Hacks

SIDN,the company behind .NL extension,announced that it is offering extra protection for domain names following the recent attacks .

You can read the announcement after the jump :

“SIDN’s .nl Control service, which offers registrants extra security for their domain names, has been extended. The extension enables .nl registrants to prevent unauthorised amendments to their domain names’ glue records. By adding the new feature, SIDN is responding to growing demand triggered by recent security incidents involving .nl domain names.

.nl Control domain name protection

The .nl Control service provides protection against certain types of unauthorised update to a registration. At present, the protected update types include registrant changes, transfers or cancellations. Relevant update requests for domain names that are registered for .nl Control are not processed automatically, but held until explicit authorisation has been received from the registrant. As soon as such a request is received, SIDN contacts the registrant and asks for written authorisation. The update is not made until the authorisation has been received. So far, however, the system has not covered glue record amendments.

Introduction of glue record protection

“Following recent DNS server hacks, there’s been growing demand for protection to prevent the modification of glue records,” explained Michiel Henneke, SIDN’s Marketing Manager. “In August, for example, hackers made changes to one of our registrars’ DNS data. Several thousand domain names were affected, with anyone who tried to visit those domains being directed to websites that were distributing malware. The addition of glue record protection to the existing .nl Control service therefore seemed the obvious response. . Because glue record protection is not relevant to all registrants, it will be available as an optional feature of the .nl Control service.”

Protection against glue record modification

With the optional feature, a registrant’s domain name can be protected against unauthorised modification of the glue records for its in-zone name server. When the feature is enabled, it will not be possible to automatically modify the IP address recorded for an in-zone name server (e.g. ns1.sidn.nl for the domain name sidn.nl). Like the other forms of protected update, a glue record modification will be implemented only once SIDN has obtained the registrant’s approval by phone and in writing.

More information

The extension of .nl Control enables registrants to exercise even more control over their domain names. For more information and to apply for .nl Control, registrants should contact their registrars or refer to https://www.sidn.nl/en/about-nl/protect-your-domain-name/.”

.CLUB Signs Deal With Sedo To Run Sunrise And Landrush, Broker Premium Domains

.Club has announced it signed an agreement with Sedo to run .Club’s Sunrise and Landrush auctions and broker premium sales of its domains.

More information is available in the news release below:

.Club Domains Selects Sedo to Bring New Social Domain Extension to Market [news release]
New Registry and Leader in Domain Services Partner to Conduct Auction and Premium Sales for Upcoming .Club Registry

Sedo, the world’s largest premium domain marketplace and monetization provider, and .Club Domains, LLC, the company formed to own and operate the new “.Club” generic top-level domain name (gTLD), have announced today (28 October) that Sedo has been selected to run the “sunrise” and “landrush” auctions, manage its premium reserve list and broker premium sales of .Club domains.

Formed in 2012 and backed by $8.2 million from private investors, .Club Domains will enable clubs, membership organizations or others sharing a common interest to establish memorable “yourname.club” Web addresses. Every day, people form communities and groups around every imaginable interest, and .Club makes it easier than ever for them to acquire a Web address that is convenient, holds meaning and has marketing value.

“The market size for .Club is immense – there are over 600 million groups on Facebook and millions of other established clubs worldwide for people with every type of interest or passion,” said Colin Campbell, chairman and CEO of .Club Domains. “.Club is immediately recognizable and meaningful in multiple languages. It will bring significance and marketing value to any domain name that appears to the left of the dot. Sedo’s long history of successfully managing and brokering premium domain sales, and the expertise they’ve built around new TLDs make them an ideal partner for launching .Club. We look forward to working together and establishing .Club’s place on the Web.”

“The term ‘club’ is relevant and used around the world, and Sedo is excited to be the partner for the gTLD .Club,” said Tobias Flaitz, CEO of Sedo. “We see attractive uses for businesses, organizations and groups of all sizes and types, and an opportunity for them to add significant relevance and ease of recognition to each of their domains by using this gTLD. You will see everyone – from major corporations using the extension for their loyalty program to smaller local book clubs – using a .Club domain. .Club is truly the ultimate club.”

.Club Domains will be discussing the new gTLD program at the newdomains 2013 conference in Munich from October 27-29, 2013. The .Club domain names will begin to be publically available in early 2014. More information about the .Club registry is available at www.dotclub.com.

About .Club Domains, LLC
Led by Internet entrepreneur Colin Campbell, whose prior successes include Tucows Interactive and Hostopia.com, .Club Domains, LLC was formed for the purpose of becoming the .CLUB gTLD registry. Fully understanding the inherent marketing value of a .CLUB domain for any membership organization, .Club Domains is also building a comprehensive social platform for club management. .Club Domains is a one-stop shop for clubs of all sizes to secure a great domain, grow club membership, improve member engagement and reduce management costs. By combining an easy to use web services platform with a top level domain based on a globally recognized term, .CLUB is “the easiest way to find, join or start a club.” More information and pre-registration of .CLUB domains is available now at www.dotclub.com.

About Sedo
Sedo, an acronym for “Search Engine for Domain Offers,” is the leading domain marketplace and monetization provider. Headquartered in Cologne, Germany and with offices in London, England and Cambridge, Mass., Sedo has assembled the world’s largest database of domain names for sale, with more than 17 million listings. The success of Sedo’s model has attracted a global base of more than 2 million members.

ICANN: ccNSO FoI WG’s Interim Report on “Revocation”

Purpose (Brief): The ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FoI WG ) seeks public comment on its initial interpretations of current policy and guidelines related to “Revocation”, which is defined as redelgations undertaken without the consent of the ccTLD manager. “Revocation” refers to the process by which the IANA Operator rescinds responsibility for management of a ccTLD from a manager.

Current Status: The Interim Report is published to seek feed-back and input from the community on the proposed interpretations of the current policies and guidelines. This is part of the process for developing recommendations to the ccNSO and GAC and ultimately to ICANN Board on the interpretation of current, existing policy and guidelines realting to the delegation and redelgation of ccTLD ‘s.

Next Steps: The WG will closely review all submitted comments to determine at may at its reasonable discretion modify its report. According to its charter the WG is not obligated to include all comments made during the comment period, nor is it obligated to include all comments submitted by any one individual or organization.

The Working Group expects to formally publish its Final Report prior to the next ICANN meeting in London (June 2014)

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:

The FoI WG identified the applicable polices and procedure statements and reviewed past cases of re-delegations undertaken without the consent of the incumbent operator. Based on this analysis the FOIWG examined issues arising in the context of the applicable policies and procedures and developed draft interpretations summarized below.

RFC 1591 identifies three mechanisms available to the IANA Operator: Delegation, Transfer and Revocation.
Under RFC 1591, a Transfer requires the consent of the incumbent ccTLD manager.
“Revocation” refers to the process by which the IANA Operator rescinds responsibility for management of a ccTLD from a manager.
The WG interprets RFC 1591 to limit Revocation to cases where the IANA Operator reasonably demonstrates that there are persistent problems with the operation of the domain, or the manager continues to engage in “substantial misbehavior”, despite the efforts of the IANA Operator using all means at its disposal to resolve such conduct.
If a manager is engaged in “substantial misbehavior” or there are “persistent problems in the operation of a ccTLD ” and the ccTLD manager is unwilling or unable to rectify the problems to the reasonable satisfaction of the IANA Operator and/or stop the offending conduct, the IANA Operator may propose a Transfer.
If the manager does not consent to a proposed Transfer, the only mechanism available to the IANA Operator to deal with ultimately intractable problems is Revocation.
If the IANA Operator revokes a delegation it should attempt, in collaboration with the significantly interested parties, to ensure the ccTLD will continue to resolve names until a suitable replacement can take over.
The FOIWG believes it is consistent general principles of fairness and with RFC1591 to afford an affected manager the opportunity to appeal a notice of revocation issued by the IANA Operator to an independent body.

The FOI WG seeks community feedback on the following questions:

Is the approach used by the working group satisfactory?
Do the issues identified by the working group for this topic capture the major problems associated with the topic? If not what is missing?
Is the proposed interpretation of the relevant sections of RFC 1591 effective and supported?
Are the proposed recommendations effective in addressing the concerns raised in the final report of the DRDWG regarding this topic?

Section II: Background:

The FOIWG was created by the ccNSO Council following the recommendations of the Delegation and Re-delegation Working Group (DRDWG): Recommendation 2: Delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs

The DRDWG recommends that, as a first step, the ccNSO Council undertakes the development of a “Framework of Interpretation” for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA and the ICANN Board on interpretations of the current policies, guidelines and procedures relating to the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs.

The results of the use of such a Framework of Interpretation should be formally monitored and evaluated by the ccNSO Council after a pre-determined period. If the results of this evaluation indicate that the Framework of Interpretation failed to provide logical and predictable outcomes in ICANN decision making, the ccNSO Council should then launch PDPs on the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs.

The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement Working Group (DRDWG) identified the following issues pertaining to “Unconsented Redelegations”:

No procedure for re-delegation of a ccTLD without the consent of the incumbent operator. RFC1591 nor ICP1 discuss the re-delegation of a ccTLD without the consent of the incumbent operator. Instead both of these documents discuss the revocation of a delegation by IANA , for cause, followed by a re-delegation to a new operator. This is somewhat confusing given that in these types of situations the revocation has never caused a ccTLD to be removed from the root prior to being delegated to a new operator &ndash thus trying to ensure continued resolution of the domains registered in the relevant ccTLD . This further illustrates some of the issues surrounding the re-delegation of ccTLDs without the consent of the incumbent operator.

The objective of the FOIWG is to develop and propose a “Framework of Interpretation” for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA functions manager and the ICANN Board on interpretation of the current Policy Statements.

Section III: Document and Resource Links:

The Interim Report can be found at: Interim Report on Revocation [PDF, 220 KB]

Additional Resources:

Further information on the work of the FoI WG is available at: ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm

Section IV: Additional Information:

The Interim Report addresses the third of the following topics and which will be considered individually and in the order presented:

Obtaining and documenting consent for delegation and re-delegation requests
Obtaining and documenting support for delegation and re-delegation requests from Significantly Interested Parties (sometimes referred to as Local Internet Community or LIC).
Developing recommendations for un-consented re-delegations
Developing a comprehensive glossary of the terms used for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs.
Developing recommendations for IANA reports on delegation and re-delegation

Comment / Reply Periods