Does the term “shadow registry” concern you? It should if you own a .gd domain name.
Over the past few years startups and tech darlings have increasingly embraced “cute” ccTLDs and domain hacks that include ccTLDs.
A key example is bitly.
Bitly, which created millions of shortened URLs at Bit.ly, found out that using a ccTLD is not necessarily the safest thing to do. .Ly is the country code for Libya. With everything that happened in Libya over the past couple years, there was significant risk with using a .ly domain name.
Sometimes it’s not political strife that should cause ccTLD owners to worry. It’s mismanagement.
ccTLDs aren’t operated with the same scrutiny as gTLDs. Consider .GD for Grenada, which has been in a state of flux for several months.
Grenada’s National Telecommunication Regulatory Commission has delegated the operation of .GD to KSregistry GmbH. KSregistry, a subsidiary of Key-Systems, was the technical backend for previous registry provider AdamsNames, so this should be an easy transition. Right?
Not necessarily. In KSregistry’s press release today, it states:
Discrepancies in the registration data may result from the operation of a shadow registry by a third party that had partial control of the .GD zone from March 8 to May 1, 2013. While the .GD zone is frozen, no registrations, modifications, transfers, deletions or renewals can be made until the zone file has been fully reviewed and confirmed as valid and complete…
Can you imagine if you were running a business on .gd? A bet you’d have a lot of sleepless nights.
Before starting a business on a ccTLD, business owners need to scrutinize its history and management. In the case of .gd, the technical provider is respected. The problem was on the management side.
Commercialized ccTLDs that have significant backing should be OK. Small, locally run ccTLDs deserve more scrutiny.
Couldn’t a similar scenario play out with a new gtld?
@ Samit – there’s a process in place to deal with failing new TLD registries. They also have to submit more data, pass background checks, have operational plans, and enter into a contract with ICANN.
This seems to generalise ccTLDs massively – the article speaks of one or two less stable ccTLDs and throws them in the boat with literally hundreds of others who maintain extremely high level of security and stability in their zones. You only have to look at high profile ccTLDs like .de, .se, .uk and .fr among many others to see this. They are well respected in their regions and have massively different models to the examples the writer has spoken about.
@ Pat – of course. Which is why I say you need to scrutinize the ccTLD before using it.
It’s fair to say that a lot of the startups have chosen smaller ccTLDs from unstable countries.
yes – these process to deal with the failing new TLDs are often run in the backend by ccTLD registries … EBERO.
But true there are indeed back practices out there . buyer beware!
yes – these process to deal with the failing new TLDs are often run in the backend by ccTLD registries … EBERO. Anyway – tried and tested “usually” equals less risk.
It’s true some ccTLDs are high-risk, but many are quite stable and professionally run. And *regulated* by stable governments.
Unfortunately, as Andrew pointed out, some startups have chosen “smaller ccTLDs from unstable countries”.
.ly in particular has had a very chequered history.
The whole TLD of Gabon has been down for *months*, and that was less than two years ago.
If you pick an extension like these for your future project, hope for the best but prepare to suffer.
There are also a number of misconfigured extensions. Reason: lack of expertise. Some registries handle the bureaucratic matters better than the technical stuff.
For example, some TLDs still have name servers published in root zone file, that no longer exist and no longer resolve… and that is in 2013.
If I understand correctly, country codes were really meant to “indicate” a country.
So, I would think the safest bet is to go with the country codes which represent stable countries that are being used as country codes.
Like:
.US
.CN
.CA
.DE
…and so on.
The idea of re-branding or marketing a country code to mean something else seems like a gimmick.
Dear Andrew,
we mainly decided to implement a short freeze of the zone in order to analyze the data sets from both the Adamsnames and the shadow registry and try to eliminate any causes for later disputes and confusion. So far we have seen only minor divergences between the two data sets. We are working with all registrars accredited for .GD with Adamsnames to identify any remaining issues and provide a smooth transition.
We are confident that we will be able to offer a stable and reliable .GD registry going forward.
Volker Greimann
KSregistry GmbH
The technical control of .gd, .vg and .tc seems to have been “taken” from AdamsNames to Meridian TLD in March 2013. At least for .gd it’s now clear who the registry is, but for .tc and .vg we are still left completely in the dark… Any news about that?