The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has authorized the bulk transfer of Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) names from Dynamic Dolphin Incorporated to BigRock Solutions Limited, due to compliance actions taken by ICANN which resulted in the de-accreditation of Dynamic Dolphin Inc, reports ITRealms.
The affected gTLD registries, ITRealms. learnt have processed the bulk transfers as directed by ICANN. Hence, former registrants, that is, customers of Dynamic Dolphin should receive notices from BigRock Solutions Ltd, advising them of the transfer. So, customer questions about the transfer were to be directed to BigRock Solutions Ltd.
Confirming this to ITRealms, the Global Director for Media, Mr. Brad White explained why these transfers were authorized by ICANN, saying that the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) of Dynamic Dolphin Inc was due to failure by the registrar to comply with its RAA. Stressing that Dynamic Dolphin Inc.’s RAA was terminated effective 20 December 2013 and the termination notice was posted on ICANN website.
“As a result, Dynamic Dolphin Inc. is no longer permitted to register or manage gTLD registrations. ICANN authorized bulk transfers pursuant to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy to ensure that the registrant-customers of this registrar would not be harmed by their registrar’s discontinued ability to manage the registrations,” he said.
On the other hand, he enlightened on how the gaining registrar was selected, saying that ICANN followed its De-Accredited Registrar Transition Procedure to identify a gaining registrar for the gTLD names formerly managed by the de-accredited registrar. Through this process, BigRock Solutions Ltd was identified.
What the RAA says:
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
According to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy of the RAA and in consistent with ICANN’s obligation to promote and encourage robust competition in the domain name space, the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy aims at providing a straight-forward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they wish to do so.
The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders, in line with the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, which took effect from June 1, 2012, though a follow-up of the transfer policy adopted on November 7, 2008, which of course was effect until May 31, 2012.
Making of transfer policy:
ITRealms recalls that the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy was developed through ICANN’s consensus policy development process. The 29 policy recommendations contained in the Transfer Task Force’s report to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) were accepted by the GNSO Council and adopted by the ICANN Board in early 2003.
Following the ICANN’s Board instructions, ICANN staff consulted with a Transfer Assistance Group (TAG) consisting of members of the community and GNSO constituencies in order to coordinate implementation of the new transfer procedures. All ICANN-accredited registrars and unsponsored gTLD registry operators were required to follow this policy.
The Board adopted certain revisions to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy in November 2008.
Backdrop:
On 12 July 2004, ICANN announced the adoption of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy comprised of finalized policy documents. The policy then began in effect on 12 November 2004 with the original policy recommendations was reviewed at intervals of three, six, and 12 months after implementation. This area was updated as necessary with requests for public input into the review process and any revised implementation details.
For affected customers:
Seeking further clarifications, ITRealms gathered that BigRock Solutions Ltd would attempt to contact the affected registrants on this matter with anticipation customers of this de-accredited registrar should do now is to receive a notice of the transfer and instructions for continued management of their names from BigRock Solutions Ltd. Affected customers who do not receive notices from BigRock Solutions Ltd are advised to contact BigRock Solutions Ltd by using the contact information provided at http://www.internic.net/registrars/registrar-1495.html.
Equally, ITRealms gathered that registrants do not have to pay a fee for the bulk transfer, because ICANN says there is no cost to registrants for the bulk transfer. The Internet body explained that unlike a normal inter-registrar transfer, the registration terms will not be extended by a year.
But accordingly, it is important to contact BigRock Solutions Ltd, if customer’s registration will expire soon in order to maintain such registration.
First 60-day transfer denial:
In addition, ICANN told ITRealms that if affected registrants want to select a different registrar, that it’s possible, “Registrants will continue to be able to transfer their registrations to other registrars under the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Note that BigRock Solutions Ltd may deny transfers for the first 60 days following the bulk transfer, at its discretion.”
This 60-day period, ITRealms gathered is permissible under the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy and is intended to help protect registrants, because registrant may need to renew names that will expire during the first 60 days following the transfer to BigRock Solutions Ltd.
On how Dynamic Dolphin’s customers would know if a message purportedly from BigRock Solutions Ltd is legitimate, ICANN said that the message from BigRock Solutions Ltd should direct customers to its website or refer them to other contact information available.
Mindful of phishing:
For this, ICANN refers potential customers to the work prepared recently by the Anti-Phishing Working Group on how to avoid phishing scams, noting that the number and sophistication of phishing scams sent out to consumers is continuing to increase dramatically.
While online banking and e-commerce is very safe, the group said as a general rule internet users should be careful about giving out personal financial information over the Internet.
They also recommended steps consumers could use to avoid becoming a victim of these scams by being overtly suspicious of any email with urgent requests for personal financial information, stressing that unless the email is digitally signed, consumers must ensure it was not forged or ‘spoofed’.
According to the working group, phishers typically include upsetting or exciting but false, statements in their emails to get people to react immediately, just as they naturally ask for information such as user names, passwords, credit card numbers, social security numbers, and date of birth to name a few.
Equally, ITRealms gathered from the group, phisher emails, are usually not personalized, but they could be, pointing out that valid messages from customer’s bank or e-commerce company generally are personalized, but always call to check if unsure.
“Don’t use the links in an email, instant message, or chat to get to any web page if you suspect the message might not be authentic or you don’t know the sender or user’s handle,” the group advised.
They advocated for internet consumers to avoid filling out forms in email messages that ask for personal financial information, but ensure only to communicate information such as credit card numbers or account information via a secure website or the telephone.
“Always ensure that you’re using a secure website when submitting credit card or other sensitive information via your web browser. Phishers are now able to ‘spoof’ or forge both the ‘https://’ that you normally see when you’re on a secure web server and a legitimate-looking address. You may even see both in the link of a scam email. Again, make it a habit to enter the address of any banking, shopping, auction or financial transaction website yourself and not depend on displayed links,” they counseled.
Additionally, the working group says Phishers may also forge the yellow lock consumers would normally see near the bottom of their screen on a secure site, since the lock has usually been considered as another indicator that a site is ‘safe’ site. They elucidate that the lock, when double-clicked, displays the security certificate for the site. If you get any warnings displayed that the address of the site you have displayed does not match the certificate, do not continue.
On the final advice, internet consumers should remember not all scam sites will try to show the ‘https://’ and/or the security lock. So, they need to get used to the habit of looking at the address line, too. Citing for instance, if one is directed to PayPal, you need to reconfirm whether the address line display something different like “hxxp://www.gotyouscammed.com/paypal/login.htm?”
So, be aware of where you are going.
... Making SENSE of digital revolution!
No comments:
Post a Comment