Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

Search results for "enom"

  • eNom and sign 2013 RAA

    1. BY - Oct 28, 2013
    2. Domain Registrars
    3. 1 Comment

    Demand Media gears up for new TLDs by signing new registrar agreement.

    eNomDemand Media’s eNom and domain name registrars have signed the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), the company announced today.

    That makes four of the top 10 domain name registrars who have signed the new agreement. In addition to Demand Media, other top ten registrars that have signed the agreement include GoDaddy, 1&1, and Melbourne IT.

    Signing the new agreement is required before domain name registrars can sell new TLDs, and so far only a handful of registrars have executed the agreement. The updated RAA places significantly more burden on domain name registrars than the previous agreement, including whois verification.

    Demand Media was among the companies that was at the negotiating table to help craft the 2013 RAA. With the exception of Key-Systems, all of the registrars that were part of the negotiating team have now signed the agreement.

  • Google makes domain verification easier with eNom and Go Daddy

    1. BY - Jun 04, 2012
    2. Domain Registrars
    3. 3 Comments

    eNom and Go Daddy customers can verify ownership from web based interface.

    Google has just introduced a speedier way to verify your domain ownership for use with certain Google tools.

    You have to verify that you own a particular domain name in order to use some Google services with the domain, e.g. seeing search queries for your web site in Webmaster Tools. Until now the process has been kind of difficult for people without technical skills.

    The new service allows eNom and Go Daddy customers to complete a simple sign-on process to verify to Google that they own a particular domain. To verify a domain, you basically provide your registrar login credentials within an interface and grant it permission to verify your ownership.

    Google plans to extend the feature to BlueHost customers soon.

  • Site covering Bo Xilai scandal led to DDoS, eNom rejects domain as well

    1. BY - Apr 22, 2012
    2. Domain Registrars
    3. 7 Comments and eNom play hot potato with domain name. got hit with a massive distributed denial of service attack at the end of last week, and it appears this is because a site covering the downfall of Chinese Communist Party official Bo Xilai was registered with its service.

    The domain registrar had received an anonymous email saying it needed to drop, reports The Washington Post. Shortly thereafter it was hit with a DDoS. then received a message that the attack would continue “unless we handed over the domain to the attackers and told the original owner that it was stolen.”

    As far as I can tell was not hosting the site; it was just the domain registrar. I have reached out to for comment. (Update: said it was also hosting the site. Update 2: Turns out they were just the registrar. Never mind.) quickly dumped the problem on eNom by helping’s owner transfer the name there. eNom didn’t want to have anything to do with it an fobbed it off on German domain registrar 1&1. That’s where the domain is at the time of writing.

    [Update 4/24: has posted about the DDos and how it responded.]

  • Four Domain Industry Execs including eNom Founder Paul Stahura Form New Venture

    1. BY - May 01, 2011
    2. Uncategorized
    3. 7 Comments

    Venture in stealth mode, but deck stacked for new top level domain names.

    eNom founder Paul Stahura, who sold his domain name registrar to Demand Media in 2006, has teamed up several other industry vets for a new venture reports GeekWire.

    The stealth venture called Donuts Inc has raised $1 million according to SEC filings.

    Former Network Solutions VP Jonathon Nevett is one of the company’s executives. Nevett has been an active consultant for new top level domain names, which makes me wonder if Donuts Inc will be applying for new top level domain names.

    The deck is certainly stacked with the credentials for such a play. Other members of the executive team include Richard Tindal, whose bare-bones LinkedIn profile still lists him as SVP of registry at Demand Media and Daniel Schindler, former CEO of CentralNIC.

    Directors include members of venture capital firms TL Ventures and Austin Ventures.

    This will be an interesting one to watch.

  • eNom and Go Daddy Still Disqualified from Applying for New Top Level Domains

    1. BY - Apr 16, 2011
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 2 Comments

    Language of new applicant guidebook disqualifies two large domain name registrars.

    If you read the spirit of the rules related to new top level domain names, domain name registrars eNom and Go Daddy are still disqualified from applying for their own top level domain names.

    In the latest draft ICANN tweaked the language regarding applicants for new TLDs who have been found guilty of cybersquatting, but not enough to let these two companies off the hook.

    The guidebook reads:

    In the absence of exceptional circumstances, applications from any entity with or including any Individual Applicants with confirmed convictions of the types listed in (a) – (m) below will be automatically disqualified from the program…

    has been involved in of a pattern of adverse, final decisions indicating that the applicant or individual named in the application was engaged in cybersquatting as defined in the UDRP, ACPA, or other equivalent legislation, or was engaged in reverse domain name hijacking under the UDRP or bad faith or reckless disregard under the ACPA or other equivalent legislation. Three or more such decisions with one occurring in the last four years will generally be considered to constitute a pattern.

    The new language in the latest guidebook notes that decisions must be “final”. It also adds language regarding people who are guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

    But eNom and Go Daddy both have three or more “final” UDRP losses with at least one in the past four years.

    Now, technically there are ways around this. For both registrars the domains that got them in trouble were actually owned by affiliate or subsidiary companies. There’s also a bit of wiggle room in the language, such as “generally be considered” and “in the absence of exceptional circumstances”.

    As I’ve commented before, I don’t think it’s right to apply this arbitrary standard of cybersquatting retroactively. And I can’t see ICANN denying an otherwise good application from either of these domain registrars.