Time to Redelegate the PH Domain (domain buyers be careful!)

[mannyamador]

---

[size=18px]Will We Finally See Real Reforms in the PH Domain?[/size]
From: http://www.phnix.net

(Note: This is a revised version of the author's column which appeared in the April, 2005 issue of PC World Philippines (www.pcworld.com.ph). Latest revision is dated march 4, 2005.)

If you recall, the Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT) had ordered the current .PH administrator, Mr. Joel Disini, the owner of DotPH, to choose whether he wanted to remain as the .PH Registry (the controller of the domain database) or become A Registrar (a seller of .PH domain names). This was part of the guidelines for the reform of the .PH Country-Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD).

DotPH, however, tried to stall while revving up a little public relations campaign. Fortunately, the CICT has decided to sidestep the obstructionism and opted for redelegation, so we may have a new .PH administrator by the end of they year!

In the past, DotPH was not, in my opinion, above dragging its feet on the issue of reform. For example, DotPH chose not to participate in the public hearings to draft the abovementioned guidelines (unless you count sending a camerman to record the proceedings as participation), but then it went on to claim that it was not consulted! DotPH representatives also had several meetings with members of the CICT, but refused to discuss reforms or even to provide basic information about the ccTLD! And after the guidelines were crafted, DotPH even tried to get individual meetings with members of the CICT's Advisory Board (one can only wonder why)! Fortunately, everyone saw such meetings would be fruitless and open to speculation, so the one-on-one meetings were rejected.

Then DotPH claimed it needed clarification on certain issues before it could make the decision required of it by the CICT. But then DotPH conveniently neglected to make that request during ther time period allotted to ity, and only revealed the request for clarification when time was running out!

In fact, Disini has refused to even acknowledge the guidelines, claiming that they were "onerous" and based on wrong information. The problem is, when asked for the "correct" information, DotPH stonewalls. DotPH often claims that the size of the market would discourage competition, especially the entry of small players who would try to provide the same level of service as DotPH. But when asked in one meeting about the size of that market so as to determine whether the claim was true, the DotPH representative said this was proprietary information. When asked how big the market would have to be, DotPH did not have an answer. Then they were asked if DNS information is also considered propreitary information by DotPH. There was no answer!

Now the Disinis are blogging, trying to muddle the issues and attack their critics. On Pinoyblog, for instance, there have been attacks against PHNet, a non-profit organization that employs one of DotPH's foremost critics. But the faults (if any) of PHNet are totally irrelevant to the issue of reforming the way the .PH ccTLD is run. The real issues are transparent governance and accountability, issues which are totally independent of how PHNet is run.

Now I don't know what spin others may put on these past moves, but they look like delaying tactics to me. With redelegation waiting in the wings, however, we may finally be seeing real reforms.

[mannyamador]

By the way, while DotPH hasbeen trying to stall the inevitable with all sorts of tactics, it is also trying to sell new "services" which it may not be able to sustain if the domain is redelegated. Buyer beware!

[mannyamador]

Is there anyone out there who has purchased a .PH domain name and NOT been issued a receipt? This has been one of the persistent complaints against DotPH!

Also, if you purchased a "lifetime" domain long ago, did you know that for the slightest change in DNS records, DotPH will charge you around US$30! That's almost as much as buying a new domain name all over again. Highway robbery!

[mannyamador]

[size=18px]PLDTI Statement in Support of CICT's Redelegation Efforts[/size]

"The Philippine League for Democratic Telecommunications, Inc.
(PLDTI), in pursuit of its commitment to fight for just, equitable,
and pro-consumer telecommunications policies, publicly expresses its
strong support for the Commission on ICT (CICT) in its initiatives
towards redelegation of the PH Domain. We believe this move will
formalize and properly document the trust contract between the
Philippine Internet community, the .ph ccTLD domain
Manager/administrator, and ICANN."

PLDTI was one of the groups that successfully opposed PLDT's
mandatory telephone metering scheme. It is because of this successful
campaign that most landlines in the Philippines are NOT metered.

[mannyamador]

For those interested, here are the URLs for documents about other redelegation efforts.

IANA Reports about ccTLDs
(http://www.iana.org/reports/cctld-reports.htm)

• http://www.iana.org/reports/ps-report-21jun04.htm
  Report on Redelegation of the .ps Top-Level Domain
  (21 June 2004)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/ng-report-10jun04.htm
  Report on Redelegation of the .ng Top-Level Domain
  (10 June 2004)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/ht-report-13jan04.htm"
  Report on Redelegation of the .ht Top-Level Domain
  (13 January 2004)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/md-report-22oct03.htm
  Request for Redelegation of .md Top-Level Domain
  (22 October 2003)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/ky-report-30jun03.htm
  Report on Redelegation of the .ky Top-Level Domain
  (30 June 2003)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/pw-report-30jun03.htm
  Report on Redelegation of the .pw Top-Level Domain
  (30 June 2003)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/tj-report-30jun03.htm
  Report on Redelegation of the .tj Top-Level Domain
  (30 June 2003)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/tw-report-29may03.htm
  Report on Redelegation of the .tw Top-Level Domain
  (29 May 2003)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/uz-report-10apr03.htm
  Report on Redelegation of the .uz Top-Level Domain
  (10 April 2003)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/af-report-08jan03.htm
  Report on Redelegation of the .af Top-Level Domain
  (8 January 2003)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/ke-report-20dec02.htm
  Report on Redelegation of the .ke Top-Level Domain
  (20 December 2002)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/sd-report-20dec02.htm
  Report on Redelegation of the .sd Top-Level Domain
  (20 December 2002)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/la-report-11dec02.htm
  Report on Redelegation of the .la Top-Level Domain
  (11 December 2002)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/mw-report-12aug02.htm
  Report on Redelegation of the .mw Top-Level Domain
  (12 August 2002)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/bi-report-16jul02.htm
  Report on Redelegation of the .bi Top-Level Domain
  (16 July 2002)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/jp-report-01apr02.htm
  Second Report on Request for Redelegation of the .jp Top-Level Domain
  (1 April 2002)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/jp-report-08feb02.htm
  Report on Request for Redelegation of the .jp Top-Level Domain
  (8 February 2002)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/au-report-19nov01.htm
  Second Report on Request for Redelegation of the .au Top-Level Domain
  (19 November 2001)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/au-report-31aug01.htm
  Report on Request for Redelegation of the .au Top-Level Domain
  (31 August 2001)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/zr-report-20jun01.htm
  Report on Deletion of the .zr Top-Level Domain
  (20 June 2001)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/ca-report-01dec00.htm
  Report on Request for Redelegation of the .ca Top-Level Domain
  (1 December 2000)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/ps-report-22mar00.htm
  Report on Request for Delegation of the .ps Top-Level Domain
  (22 March 2000)
• http://www.iana.org/reports/pn-report-11feb00.htm
  Report on Request for Redelegation of the .pn Top-Level Domain
  (11 February 2000)