Kia ora 

On Thursday, 28 July, the Domain Name Commission and InternetNZ Annual General Meeting was held. It was a very rewarding task preparing the annual report and thinking about the year that was.

In my AGM update, I commented on the pleasing indications of a healthy .nz market, including the steady median domain name price; and the high number of domain name providers and domain name registrations. It was also pleasing to be able to report on the low number of complaints about domain name registrations. Another success has been the increasing uptake of the privacy option for domain name registrants and the progress being made to reduce the number of conflicted domain names (domain names that are held out of the market due to no resolution being reached between parties with rights to the name).

In my update, I also gave thanks to those supporting my transition into the role of Interim Domain Name Commissioner, including the outgoing Commissioner, Brent Carey, our very supportive Board, and, not least, our small and committed team.

Preparation for the AGM reminded me how rewarding it can be just to stop and pause and think about what’s been achieved.

I hope this newsletter finds you in good health. I, for one, am looking forward to Spring!

Ngā mihi

Isobel Egerton 

Interim Domain Name Commissioner

Updates from the team

.nz domain minimum registration term changes 

A reminder that the minimum .nz domain name term for registrations and renewals is changing to one year on 1 November 2022, when the new .nz registry system goes live. 

Please reach out to your registrar — domain name registrations provider — if you have any questions about the billing changes. If you are paying for your .nz domain name registrations once a year or once in a few years, you are all set, and nothing will change for you.

Conflicted Names Pilot 

As the Conflicted Domain Names Pilot reaches its mid-point mark, our coaches and mediators have appreciated the engagement and feedback from people as they use the Immediation platform. Many Conflicted Names have now been resolved, and it’s interesting to see how technology can assist in helping people reach an agreement. 

If you are not part of a Conflicted Domain Name set but are interested in the technology side, you can check out the platform via our e-learning tool.

Expert Dispute Resolution decision 

Ventair Pty Ltd v EvolutionFX [2022] NZDNCL 1460

In Ventair Pty Ltd v EvolutionFX [2022], the expert ordered the transfer of <ventair.co.nz> finding that, given the respondent’s history with the complainant, the respondent’s director must have known the complainant was using the name ‘Ventair’ for its business. 

The complainant, Ventair Pty Ltd, is an Australian company that manufactures and distributes air movement products. An ex-employee set up and incorporated a rival business, EvolutionFX, with him as its director and registered the disputed domain name. 

The expert found that the history could be taken to mean the respondent deliberately used <Ventair.co.nz> to compete with the complainant, taking advantage of the complainant’s right to the name and, therefore, was an unfair registration.

Interested in reading more of our Expert Decisions? Head over to our Case Summaries.

High Court orders takes down against registrar

Auckland criminal barrister, James Olsen, found himself the subject of a fake website marketing his services and potentially luring people into paying upfront fees to the creator of the website. The website was associated with the domain name: jamesolsennz.com and was apparently created by copying another barrister’s information and replacing certain details with Olsen’s name, picture, and contact details displayed. Olsen sought orders requiring the take-down of the website. His grounds for the order were based on the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to control its officers. Olsen argued that leaving the website up would “put the administration of justice into disrepute as it gives untrue information about an officer of the Court, with a (likely) view to misleading the public for financial gain.”

Moore J was easily satisfied that the Court had the necessary inherent jurisdiction to do so and issued the take down orders. 

Other successful actions for the take down of domain names have relied on the Fair Trading Act (including cases based on sections 9 and 41).

Interesting news and media 

• Judge issues takedown order after lawyer's identity stolen by fake website.
• Cyber threats impacting Australian and New Zealand businesses
• InternetNZ announces new Chief Executive

Feedback 

And, as always, please give us feedback via email info@dnc.org.nz or on Twitter (@nzdnc). What topics do you want to hear more about, what bullet above is your favourite? What do you want more or less of?