Recently we were pleased to be a part of the release of Unbound, a new open source alternative to the BIND domain name system (DNS) server, which we helped to develop.

Released by NLnet Labs, VeriSign Inc, Nominet and Kirei, Unbound is a recursive DNS server, which is used by Internet Service Providers to support DNS look-ups by Internet users. DNS is the feature of the Internet that matches domain names (such as www.nominet.org.uk) with IP addresses and is used for web browsing, email, messaging, and Internet-based telephony.

From its first prototype in 2004 Unbound was designed to be a faster, more secure alternative to BIND (Berkeley Internet Name Domain) which has been the most popular choice for DNS servers since the 1980s.

One of the main advantages of Unbound is that it is high performing and very fast. It also supports DNSSEC, a security enhancement that is essential to help protect DNS transactions. By making the software freely available to developers (at http://unbound.net/) we hope to spread the deployment of DNSSEC. This in turn will enable Internet Service Providers to provide a faster, safer Internet experience for their customers.

We were interested to see two high profile examples of organisations taking a stand against domain tasting recently.

Domain tasting is the practice of registering domain names, assessing revenue generation potential and, if they create an insufficient return, deleting the domain names before the registry requests payment.

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.

There has recently been some suggestion of governments attempting to control their citizens’ access to the Internet. In Russia, the government is reportedly planning to create a web that operates in the Cyrillic alphabet and is independent from the rest of the Internet and the Japanese communications ministry is recommending that their government starts regulating the internet by 2010, in response to concerns over libellous flaming on forums.
The situation in Russia illustrates the complex issues surrounding the implementation of internationalised domain names. The transition to the widespread use of non-ASCII domain names combined with a majority of users operating non-ASCII keyboards could result in a situation where citizens find themselves restricted to a single language Internet and cut off from the rest of the world wide web.
There is also speculation that in some territories citizens will need a password authorised by government agencies in order to use the global internet, thus giving governments the ability to control what communication individuals have with the outside world. One of the key arguments in defence of this practice is that it helps monitor cybercrime. However, this stance does not convince security experts who have suggested that such a move would make it very difficult to track cybercrime as it would put a wall between the criminals and their victims.
Elsewhere there have been further moves towards web censorship in response to concern over citizens using the Internet to launch critical attacks. In countries where the media is heavily regulated and subject to a lot of self-censorship, the Internet has represented an oasis of freedom where citizens can openly criticise people without fear of personal reprisal, thanks to the protection provided by anonymous posting. There are however, an increasing number of stories about web sites that have caused sufficient uproar to have been closed down and placed on government lists of sites that are apparently “unacceptable and harmful to Society”. Some see that these heavy-handed shutdowns may be the first step to introducing filtering software to control what appears on the Internet in countries where governments are keen to eradicate vitriolic protests in the public arena. Such powers of censorship would most likely be held by governments alone without the buffer of any independent watchdog to arbitrate on what constitutes ‘unacceptable’ content.
All of this activity seems a world away from the wide-ranging Internet freedom we are used to in the UK. Nevertheless, it is a debate that has been running for some time on a global level at the Internet Governance Forum which has been discussing access and openness as two of its key themes. Whilst progress is being made in some aspects, these recent developments highlight the political complexities involved and give credence to those who espouse the theory that fragmentation of the global Internet is inevitable.

Last week we presented our domain name industry report at our first .uk registrar conference. It was well received and has provoked subsequent interest from a broader audience.

The report shows that the domain name industry both globally and in the UK is healthy. The report demonstrates the extent of the uptake of the Internet in the UK. It reveals areas of potential future growth and gives pointers as to current trends in domain name registration and the changing nature of the UK registrar market.

It’s clear that despite impressive growth to date, this is still a relatively young and certainly rapidly changing market. Trust remains a key issue for consumers and businesses alike. The winners in the industry will be those that have developed the strongest, most trustworthy reputations.

Another finding that stands out is that businesses and individuals should prioritise renewing their domain names, as failure to do so could result in their online brand identity being snapped up by someone else. It shows that 70% of registrants renew their domain names, and a large proportion do so well ahead of time, either a month (25%) or a day (14%) before they are due to expire. However, a surprising 14% of businesses do not renew their domain name until the day after renewal is due.

Renewing a .uk domain name is a relatively easy process, and it is possible to renew the registration up to 6 months in advance of its expiry date. For full details please see here.

However, if a registrant has incorrect contact information associated with the domain name they may not receive any renewal reminders from Nominet or their registrar. In such cases they may lose the domain name when it is eventually cancelled and made available for re-registration.

Based on current renewals trends revealed in the report, in the next two years alone, over 140,000 .co.uk domains will be re-registered in less than 10 seconds after they become available. There is an active market in buying, selling and storing domain names, with regular sales exceeding £100,000 and peak values reaching more than £1 million. Domain names are either being registered for resale or for monetisation, by creating a web site that makes money for the registrant through pay-per-click and affiliate advertising.

The point here is that there really is no good reason for any business or individual to lose their domain name in this way, provided that they keep their contact details up to date, and advise their registrar that they wish to renew.