Paparan:118
Masa:2026-08-18 13:48:55 Penulis: windy 
On August 6, 2026, Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) published research on UNC6671 and its associated phishing infrastructure. The report describes activity involving voice phishing, spoofed login portals, credential theft and Adversary-in-the-Middle techniques used to target enterprise users and cloud environments.
The report's Indicators of Compromise (IOC) table included 50 domains for which NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED was listed as the registrar. NiceNIC conducted a case-by-case review of those 50 domains using available registration records, customer-account information, abuse-reporting records, review records, enforcement records and current domain status.
This article presents the registrar-side findings from that review. It is intended to complement the threat-intelligence findings published by GTIG with information available to NiceNIC as the registrar. It does not replace or reinterpret Google's analysis of UNC6671.
Executive Summary
As of August 18, 2026, all 50 domains reviewed by NiceNIC are subject to hold status in NiceNIC's records. Forty-nine are recorded with clientHold, while one is recorded with both serverHold and clientHold.
The review also identified several patterns relevant to registrar-side abuse controls. The 50 registrations were associated with six customer accounts, 28 of the domains were concentrated in one account, and all 50 registrations were submitted through API workflows. These findings support stronger account-level and cluster-level analysis when confirmed abuse is associated with multiple related registrations.
NiceNIC is incorporating the findings into its broader approach to DNS abuse prevention and mitigation. Additional public information about NiceNIC's security and abuse-handling resources is available through the NiceNIC Trust Center.
What the Google Threat Intelligence Report Identified
GTIG reported that UNC6671 continued activity associated with data theft and extortion while operating across several extortion brands. According to the report, the actor used voice phishing to impersonate IT helpdesk personnel and direct employees to spoofed login portals. The infrastructure was designed to obtain credentials and multi-factor authentication tokens and to facilitate unauthorized access to enterprise cloud environments.
Google published an IOC table to support threat hunting and investigation. The table includes domain names, creation dates, registrars, name servers and targeted industries. NiceNIC appears in the registrar field for 50 of the domains listed in that table.
The registrar field identifies the registrar associated with a domain registration. GTIG's threat analysis and attribution concern UNC6671 and the activity described in the report. NiceNIC's review addresses a separate but related question: what registrar-side records exist for the 50 domains associated with NiceNIC in the IOC table, what actions were recorded, and what their current status is.
GTIG also stated that the identified phishing domains had been added to Google Safe Browsing at the time of publication. The report noted that domains associated with this activity could be provisioned and used within minutes of registration. This short activation window is significant for infrastructure providers because it limits the time available to identify and investigate suspicious activity after registration.
Google further explained that the listed domains are useful for understanding historical naming and usage patterns, while rapid infrastructure rotation limits the effectiveness of relying only on static domain indicators for real-time defense. That observation is also relevant at the registrar level: responding to an individual reported domain remains necessary, but related account activity and recurring registration patterns may provide additional context for identifying broader abuse.
Scope and Methodology of NiceNIC's Review
NiceNIC reviewed the 50 domains for which its legal entity was listed as registrar in the GTIG IOC table. The domains were created between April 20 and August 3, 2026.
For each domain, NiceNIC compared the information published by GTIG with available internal records. The review considered:
This distinction is important because a domain may be reviewed or restricted through one source of information and later appear in another report. Missing timestamps were therefore not treated as proof that no review or action occurred, and timestamps representing different case histories were not combined into a single response-time calculation.
NiceNIC's broader review principles and evidence standards are described in the NiceNIC Abuse Handling Manual.
Finding 1: All 50 Domains Are Currently Subject to Hold Status
The clearest finding concerns the present enforcement status of the domains.
As of August 18, 2026, all 50 domains in the reviewed dataset are subject to hold status in NiceNIC's records.
Forty-nine domains are recorded with clientHold. One domain is recorded with both serverHold and clientHold. The review therefore found no domain in this 50-domain dataset that remained without a hold action in NiceNIC's current records.
This finding documents current status. It should not be interpreted as a claim that all 50 historical cases followed the same path or were handled within the same period. Evaluating response performance requires comparable case events, which is addressed separately below.
Finding 2: The Registrations Were Concentrated Across a Limited Number of Accounts
The 50 domains were associated with six NiceNIC customer accounts. Twenty-eight domains were associated with a single account, while the remaining 22 were distributed across five other accounts.
This concentration is operationally significant. When several confirmed abusive domains share account relationships, registration methods, naming characteristics or other recurring indicators, reviewing each domain only as an isolated case may not provide a complete picture of the activity.
The review therefore supports a broader investigation model in cases where credible abuse is confirmed. The purpose of that model is to identify meaningful relationships between registrations and determine whether additional domains or account activity warrant review.
Finding 3: All 50 Registrations
All 50 domains in the reviewed dataset were registered through API workflows.
API registration is a standard and legitimate method used by resellers, hosting companies, domain portfolio operators and other customers that require automated provisioning. API usage by itself is not evidence of malicious activity.
The reviewed cases nevertheless demonstrate why automated registration should be evaluated together with other risk indicators. When confirmed abuse is combined with concentrated account activity, recurring naming structures, related infrastructure or repeated registration patterns, account-level analysis may reveal relationships that are not visible from a single domain report.
The appropriate control objective is therefore not to restrict legitimate automation, but to improve the ability to identify abnormal patterns when multiple credible indicators converge.
Interpreting the Report, Review and Action Timeline
NiceNIC also reviewed the available Report, Review and Action timestamps associated with the 50 domains.
The current dataset does not support one reliable average response-time calculation across all 50 cases.
Forty-three domains contain a corresponding Report timestamp in the reviewed data, while seven do not. In several records, the Action timestamp predates the Report event currently associated with the domain.
These differences indicate that the records do not represent one uniform sequence in which every case begins with the same type of report. For example, a domain may already have been reviewed or restricted before a later report was received or linked to the case.
Using the current dataset to calculate one average from Report to Action would therefore combine different case histories and could give an inaccurate impression of registrar response performance.
For this reason, NiceNIC is not using these 50 domains to make a generalized claim about average response time.
Why High-Risk DNS Abuse Requires Separate Measurement
The GTIG report illustrates how quickly phishing infrastructure can become operational. When a domain can move from registration to active use within a short period, high-risk DNS abuse cannot be evaluated effectively using the same measurement model as general support requests or lower-risk abuse complaints.
NiceNIC is therefore moving toward a clearer event-based framework for high-risk cases such as phishing, malware and botnet activity:
More information about the types of activity treated as DNS abuse and the distinction between DNS abuse and other content-related complaints is available in NiceNIC's DNS Abuse guide.
Moving from Individual Domains to Related Activity
A second important conclusion concerns the difference between domain-level response and campaign-level detection.
GTIG's analysis identified recurring naming patterns, shared phishing templates and overlapping infrastructure across domains associated with UNC6671. NiceNIC's internal review identified a related registrar-side pattern: the 50 registrations were concentrated within six customer accounts, more than half were associated with one account, and all were submitted through API workflows.
These observations do not mean that account concentration or API usage should be treated as evidence of abuse. They do show that once credible abuse is confirmed, related registrations may provide useful context for determining whether the incident is isolated or part of a broader pattern.
Future review processes will therefore place greater emphasis on relationships between confirmed abusive domains, associated accounts, recurring registration behavior and other relevant indicators. This approach is intended to supplement individual-domain investigation, not replace the evidence required for enforcement.
Control Improvements Identified by the Review
The review has identified five areas where NiceNIC is strengthening its registrar-side abuse controls.
1. Separate handling for active DNS abuse
Phishing, malware, botnet and comparable high-risk cases should follow a dedicated review path rather than being measured together with general abuse complaints.
2. Standardized case chronology
Report receipt, initial assessment and mitigation should be recorded as distinct events using consistent definitions. This will improve internal analysis and make future response metrics easier to interpret.
3. Account-level and cluster-level review
When credible abuse is confirmed, related registrations should be evaluated for meaningful connections such as shared accounts, recurring naming patterns, registration behavior and other relevant signals.
4. Risk analysis for automated registration
Automated registration should remain available to legitimate customers while additional risk analysis is applied when API activity is combined with confirmed abuse or other credible indicators.
5. Structured use of verifiable abuse evidence
Specific domains, exact URLs, screenshots, timestamps, email headers and other verifiable evidence provide a stronger basis for timely investigation than unsupported or incomplete allegations.
Security researchers and other reporters can submit evidence through NiceNIC's official domain abuse reporting channel. NiceNIC also provides guidance on how to submit an actionable abuse report.
How the NiceNIC Review Relates to the GTIG Findings
The GTIG report and the NiceNIC review address different parts of the same incident record.
GTIG documented threat-actor activity, phishing infrastructure, naming patterns, technical indicators and observed targeting. NiceNIC's review examines the registrar-side records associated with the 50 domains for which NiceNIC was listed as registrar in the IOC table.
The two perspectives should not be treated as competing accounts. Threat-intelligence organizations, registrars, registries, hosting providers and other infrastructure operators often have access to different information about the same incident.
For this reason, the value of the registrar-side review is not to dispute the presence of the domains in the GTIG report. Its value is to document what can be established from NiceNIC's internal records, including current enforcement status, account concentration, registration method, available case timestamps and the operational changes supported by those findings.
This distinction is also important for customers evaluating NiceNIC. A meaningful assessment of registrar abuse handling should consider verifiable case outcomes and the controls used to identify related activity, rather than relying only on general statements about security or on the presence of a registrar name in an IOC table.
Current Status and Continuing Review
As of August 18, 2026, all 50 domains covered by this review are subject to hold status in NiceNIC's records.
The review also identified limitations in the historical timestamp data. NiceNIC will therefore avoid presenting a simplified average response-time figure when the underlying case records are not directly comparable.
Future DNS abuse reporting will place greater emphasis on clearly defined event timestamps, separate measurement of high-risk DNS abuse, account-level investigation and documented mitigation outcomes.
The objective is to make future reviews easier to verify, easier to compare across cases and more useful to customers, security researchers and other parties evaluating registrar-side abuse controls.
NiceNIC will continue to use external threat intelligence, actionable abuse reports and internal account data as complementary sources when reviewing suspected abuse. The NiceNIC Trust Center will continue to provide access to relevant security, abuse-handling and transparency resources.
Questions About the NiceNIC UNC6671 Review
1. Why does NiceNIC appear in the Google Threat Intelligence UNC6671 report?
The GTIG IOC table lists the registrar associated with each published domain indicator. Fifty domains in the table list NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED as registrar. GTIG's report analyzes UNC6671 and the related threat activity, while NiceNIC's review examines the registrar-side records associated with those 50 domains.
2. What is the current status of the 50 domains?
As of August 18, 2026, all 50 domains are subject to hold status in NiceNIC's reviewed records. Forty-nine are recorded with clientHold, while one is recorded with both serverHold and clientHold.
3. How quickly did NiceNIC take action?
The reviewed dataset does not support one reliable average response-time figure for all 50 domains. Forty-three domains contain a corresponding Report timestamp and seven do not. Some records also contain an Action timestamp that predates the Report event currently associated with the case. NiceNIC therefore considers standardized Report, Initial Assessment and Mitigation timestamps a more reliable basis for future measurement.
4. How can suspected abuse involving a NiceNIC domain be reported?
Reports can be submitted through the NiceNIC abuse reporting page. Providing the affected domain or URL, a clear description of the suspected abuse and verifiable supporting evidence helps the review process focus on specific, actionable information.
Sources and Review Basis
External threat-intelligence source: Google Threat Intelligence Group, "UNC6671 Rebrands: Multi-Brand Vishing Extortion Targets Financial Services and Enterprise Cloud Environments," published August 6, 2026.
NiceNIC review basis: Internal registrar records covering the 50 domains for which NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED appears as registrar in the GTIG IOC table, including registration information, customer-account association, registration method, available Report and Review records, enforcement records and current domain status.
Status date: August 18, 2026.
Current status information reflects NiceNIC's internal records as of the review date. Domain status and enforcement conditions may change if additional evidence, remediation information, registry action or other relevant case developments occur.
The report's Indicators of Compromise (IOC) table included 50 domains for which NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED was listed as the registrar. NiceNIC conducted a case-by-case review of those 50 domains using available registration records, customer-account information, abuse-reporting records, review records, enforcement records and current domain status.
This article presents the registrar-side findings from that review. It is intended to complement the threat-intelligence findings published by GTIG with information available to NiceNIC as the registrar. It does not replace or reinterpret Google's analysis of UNC6671.
Executive Summary
As of August 18, 2026, all 50 domains reviewed by NiceNIC are subject to hold status in NiceNIC's records. Forty-nine are recorded with clientHold, while one is recorded with both serverHold and clientHold.
The review also identified several patterns relevant to registrar-side abuse controls. The 50 registrations were associated with six customer accounts, 28 of the domains were concentrated in one account, and all 50 registrations were submitted through API workflows. These findings support stronger account-level and cluster-level analysis when confirmed abuse is associated with multiple related registrations.
NiceNIC is incorporating the findings into its broader approach to DNS abuse prevention and mitigation. Additional public information about NiceNIC's security and abuse-handling resources is available through the NiceNIC Trust Center.
| Review Metric | Result |
|---|---|
| Domains reviewed | 50 |
| Domains currently subject to hold status | 50 |
| Domains with clientHold | 49 |
| Domains with both serverHold and clientHold | 1 |
| Customer accounts associated with the registrations | 6 |
| Domains associated with the largest single account | 28 |
| Domains registered through API workflows | 50 |
| Domains with a corresponding Report timestamp in the reviewed dataset | 43 |
GTIG reported that UNC6671 continued activity associated with data theft and extortion while operating across several extortion brands. According to the report, the actor used voice phishing to impersonate IT helpdesk personnel and direct employees to spoofed login portals. The infrastructure was designed to obtain credentials and multi-factor authentication tokens and to facilitate unauthorized access to enterprise cloud environments.
Google published an IOC table to support threat hunting and investigation. The table includes domain names, creation dates, registrars, name servers and targeted industries. NiceNIC appears in the registrar field for 50 of the domains listed in that table.
The registrar field identifies the registrar associated with a domain registration. GTIG's threat analysis and attribution concern UNC6671 and the activity described in the report. NiceNIC's review addresses a separate but related question: what registrar-side records exist for the 50 domains associated with NiceNIC in the IOC table, what actions were recorded, and what their current status is.
GTIG also stated that the identified phishing domains had been added to Google Safe Browsing at the time of publication. The report noted that domains associated with this activity could be provisioned and used within minutes of registration. This short activation window is significant for infrastructure providers because it limits the time available to identify and investigate suspicious activity after registration.
Google further explained that the listed domains are useful for understanding historical naming and usage patterns, while rapid infrastructure rotation limits the effectiveness of relying only on static domain indicators for real-time defense. That observation is also relevant at the registrar level: responding to an individual reported domain remains necessary, but related account activity and recurring registration patterns may provide additional context for identifying broader abuse.
Scope and Methodology of NiceNIC's Review
NiceNIC reviewed the 50 domains for which its legal entity was listed as registrar in the GTIG IOC table. The domains were created between April 20 and August 3, 2026.
For each domain, NiceNIC compared the information published by GTIG with available internal records. The review considered:
- domain creation date;
- name server or related infrastructure information;
- associated NiceNIC customer account;
- registration method;
- available abuse Report timestamp;
- available Review timestamp;
- recorded Action timestamp; and
- current domain status.
This distinction is important because a domain may be reviewed or restricted through one source of information and later appear in another report. Missing timestamps were therefore not treated as proof that no review or action occurred, and timestamps representing different case histories were not combined into a single response-time calculation.
NiceNIC's broader review principles and evidence standards are described in the NiceNIC Abuse Handling Manual.
Finding 1: All 50 Domains Are Currently Subject to Hold Status
The clearest finding concerns the present enforcement status of the domains.
As of August 18, 2026, all 50 domains in the reviewed dataset are subject to hold status in NiceNIC's records.
Forty-nine domains are recorded with clientHold. One domain is recorded with both serverHold and clientHold. The review therefore found no domain in this 50-domain dataset that remained without a hold action in NiceNIC's current records.
This finding documents current status. It should not be interpreted as a claim that all 50 historical cases followed the same path or were handled within the same period. Evaluating response performance requires comparable case events, which is addressed separately below.
Finding 2: The Registrations Were Concentrated Across a Limited Number of Accounts
The 50 domains were associated with six NiceNIC customer accounts. Twenty-eight domains were associated with a single account, while the remaining 22 were distributed across five other accounts.
This concentration is operationally significant. When several confirmed abusive domains share account relationships, registration methods, naming characteristics or other recurring indicators, reviewing each domain only as an isolated case may not provide a complete picture of the activity.
The review therefore supports a broader investigation model in cases where credible abuse is confirmed. The purpose of that model is to identify meaningful relationships between registrations and determine whether additional domains or account activity warrant review.
Finding 3: All 50 Registrations
All 50 domains in the reviewed dataset were registered through API workflows.
API registration is a standard and legitimate method used by resellers, hosting companies, domain portfolio operators and other customers that require automated provisioning. API usage by itself is not evidence of malicious activity.
The reviewed cases nevertheless demonstrate why automated registration should be evaluated together with other risk indicators. When confirmed abuse is combined with concentrated account activity, recurring naming structures, related infrastructure or repeated registration patterns, account-level analysis may reveal relationships that are not visible from a single domain report.
The appropriate control objective is therefore not to restrict legitimate automation, but to improve the ability to identify abnormal patterns when multiple credible indicators converge.
Interpreting the Report, Review and Action Timeline
NiceNIC also reviewed the available Report, Review and Action timestamps associated with the 50 domains.
The current dataset does not support one reliable average response-time calculation across all 50 cases.
Forty-three domains contain a corresponding Report timestamp in the reviewed data, while seven do not. In several records, the Action timestamp predates the Report event currently associated with the domain.
These differences indicate that the records do not represent one uniform sequence in which every case begins with the same type of report. For example, a domain may already have been reviewed or restricted before a later report was received or linked to the case.
Using the current dataset to calculate one average from Report to Action would therefore combine different case histories and could give an inaccurate impression of registrar response performance.
For this reason, NiceNIC is not using these 50 domains to make a generalized claim about average response time.
Why High-Risk DNS Abuse Requires Separate Measurement
The GTIG report illustrates how quickly phishing infrastructure can become operational. When a domain can move from registration to active use within a short period, high-risk DNS abuse cannot be evaluated effectively using the same measurement model as general support requests or lower-risk abuse complaints.
NiceNIC is therefore moving toward a clearer event-based framework for high-risk cases such as phishing, malware and botnet activity:
- Report received: the time actionable information enters the abuse-review process;
- Initial assessment: the time the reported domain, URL and supporting evidence are evaluated;
- Mitigation or enforcement: the time an appropriate registrar-level action is applied when the available evidence supports enforcement.
More information about the types of activity treated as DNS abuse and the distinction between DNS abuse and other content-related complaints is available in NiceNIC's DNS Abuse guide.
Moving from Individual Domains to Related Activity
A second important conclusion concerns the difference between domain-level response and campaign-level detection.
GTIG's analysis identified recurring naming patterns, shared phishing templates and overlapping infrastructure across domains associated with UNC6671. NiceNIC's internal review identified a related registrar-side pattern: the 50 registrations were concentrated within six customer accounts, more than half were associated with one account, and all were submitted through API workflows.
These observations do not mean that account concentration or API usage should be treated as evidence of abuse. They do show that once credible abuse is confirmed, related registrations may provide useful context for determining whether the incident is isolated or part of a broader pattern.
Future review processes will therefore place greater emphasis on relationships between confirmed abusive domains, associated accounts, recurring registration behavior and other relevant indicators. This approach is intended to supplement individual-domain investigation, not replace the evidence required for enforcement.
Control Improvements Identified by the Review
The review has identified five areas where NiceNIC is strengthening its registrar-side abuse controls.
1. Separate handling for active DNS abuse
Phishing, malware, botnet and comparable high-risk cases should follow a dedicated review path rather than being measured together with general abuse complaints.
2. Standardized case chronology
Report receipt, initial assessment and mitigation should be recorded as distinct events using consistent definitions. This will improve internal analysis and make future response metrics easier to interpret.
3. Account-level and cluster-level review
When credible abuse is confirmed, related registrations should be evaluated for meaningful connections such as shared accounts, recurring naming patterns, registration behavior and other relevant signals.
4. Risk analysis for automated registration
Automated registration should remain available to legitimate customers while additional risk analysis is applied when API activity is combined with confirmed abuse or other credible indicators.
5. Structured use of verifiable abuse evidence
Specific domains, exact URLs, screenshots, timestamps, email headers and other verifiable evidence provide a stronger basis for timely investigation than unsupported or incomplete allegations.
Security researchers and other reporters can submit evidence through NiceNIC's official domain abuse reporting channel. NiceNIC also provides guidance on how to submit an actionable abuse report.
How the NiceNIC Review Relates to the GTIG Findings
The GTIG report and the NiceNIC review address different parts of the same incident record.
GTIG documented threat-actor activity, phishing infrastructure, naming patterns, technical indicators and observed targeting. NiceNIC's review examines the registrar-side records associated with the 50 domains for which NiceNIC was listed as registrar in the IOC table.
The two perspectives should not be treated as competing accounts. Threat-intelligence organizations, registrars, registries, hosting providers and other infrastructure operators often have access to different information about the same incident.
For this reason, the value of the registrar-side review is not to dispute the presence of the domains in the GTIG report. Its value is to document what can be established from NiceNIC's internal records, including current enforcement status, account concentration, registration method, available case timestamps and the operational changes supported by those findings.
This distinction is also important for customers evaluating NiceNIC. A meaningful assessment of registrar abuse handling should consider verifiable case outcomes and the controls used to identify related activity, rather than relying only on general statements about security or on the presence of a registrar name in an IOC table.
Current Status and Continuing Review
As of August 18, 2026, all 50 domains covered by this review are subject to hold status in NiceNIC's records.
The review also identified limitations in the historical timestamp data. NiceNIC will therefore avoid presenting a simplified average response-time figure when the underlying case records are not directly comparable.
Future DNS abuse reporting will place greater emphasis on clearly defined event timestamps, separate measurement of high-risk DNS abuse, account-level investigation and documented mitigation outcomes.
The objective is to make future reviews easier to verify, easier to compare across cases and more useful to customers, security researchers and other parties evaluating registrar-side abuse controls.
NiceNIC will continue to use external threat intelligence, actionable abuse reports and internal account data as complementary sources when reviewing suspected abuse. The NiceNIC Trust Center will continue to provide access to relevant security, abuse-handling and transparency resources.
Questions About the NiceNIC UNC6671 Review
1. Why does NiceNIC appear in the Google Threat Intelligence UNC6671 report?
The GTIG IOC table lists the registrar associated with each published domain indicator. Fifty domains in the table list NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED as registrar. GTIG's report analyzes UNC6671 and the related threat activity, while NiceNIC's review examines the registrar-side records associated with those 50 domains.
2. What is the current status of the 50 domains?
As of August 18, 2026, all 50 domains are subject to hold status in NiceNIC's reviewed records. Forty-nine are recorded with clientHold, while one is recorded with both serverHold and clientHold.
3. How quickly did NiceNIC take action?
The reviewed dataset does not support one reliable average response-time figure for all 50 domains. Forty-three domains contain a corresponding Report timestamp and seven do not. Some records also contain an Action timestamp that predates the Report event currently associated with the case. NiceNIC therefore considers standardized Report, Initial Assessment and Mitigation timestamps a more reliable basis for future measurement.
4. How can suspected abuse involving a NiceNIC domain be reported?
Reports can be submitted through the NiceNIC abuse reporting page. Providing the affected domain or URL, a clear description of the suspected abuse and verifiable supporting evidence helps the review process focus on specific, actionable information.
Sources and Review Basis
External threat-intelligence source: Google Threat Intelligence Group, "UNC6671 Rebrands: Multi-Brand Vishing Extortion Targets Financial Services and Enterprise Cloud Environments," published August 6, 2026.
NiceNIC review basis: Internal registrar records covering the 50 domains for which NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED appears as registrar in the GTIG IOC table, including registration information, customer-account association, registration method, available Report and Review records, enforcement records and current domain status.
Status date: August 18, 2026.
Current status information reflects NiceNIC's internal records as of the review date. Domain status and enforcement conditions may change if additional evidence, remediation information, registry action or other relevant case developments occur.
Pendaftar diakreditasi ICANN sejak 2006
Beli dan Daftar Domain .COM Anda Hari Ini
Semak ketersediaan domain .COM, daftar domain .COM baru, cari beberapa nama secara pukal, atau pindahkan domain .COM sedia ada anda ke NiceNIC. Dibina untuk perniagaan, pelabur domain, agensi, penyedia hosting, dan penjual semula.
Pasarkan
$25.49 $16.99
tahun pertama
Asas
$15.99
6% off
Super
$15.39
9% off
VIP
$14.99
12% off
BERITA BERKAITAN:
Berita Sebelumnya:
Cara Pindahkan Nama Domain: Kelayakan, Kod EPP, Kos & Downtime
Berita Seterusnya: Aplikasi gTLD Baru 2026: 5 Tren Awal dari AI ke Anime
Berita Seterusnya: Aplikasi gTLD Baru 2026: 5 Tren Awal dari AI ke Anime
