Proposal for Fairer Access to Dropping Domain Names

[Siusaidh]

PROPOSAL for FAIRER ACCESS to DROPPING DOMAIN NAMES



Introduction:


Nominet, the UK domain registry, has been holding consultations on best ways forward for administering ‘dropping domains’: domain names that have not been renewed and consequently become available for registration by a new registrant.

The proposal detailed here has been drafted by Susannah Clark, a Nominet member. I believe that decisions on future administration of dropping domains should be put on hold while further review of possible processes is carried out, including this one.


The Problems with the present system:


1. Concerns about equal and fair access to dropping domain names.

2. Unnecessary volume of scripts used by ‘dropcatchers’.

3. Cybersquatting and warehousing of useful domains as a result of speculative dropcatching.


Of these three problems, the first – the problem of fair access – should be the driving concern, both in the interests of the general public and in the interests of Nominet’s reputation.

At present, a high proportion of the most valuable and useful domains are caught by a small number of ‘dropcatchers’. Around 10 with the best scripts dominate the process. However, even if the playing field was levelled to give other dropcatchers a better chance with their scripts, this would still not truly create fair access for the rest of the public.

If people say they want fair access to names when they drop, then I do not see how you can argue against making all dropping domains available to everyone, at the point of dropping, without intermediaries running scripts of any kind. The ‘fairness of access’ problem particularly concerns the popular and potentially more valuable domains that currently are almost impossible for most of the public to obtain at the drop, getting grabbed within micro-seconds by a small number of speculators.

Other ‘dropcatchers’ do not really have a strong case to complain about unfairness if they are advocating any alternative process that still excludes 99% of the public at the point of first availability and sale. A very small number of people having disproportionate access to the DNS, at the point of desirable names becoming available, is arguably contrary to the values championed by Nominet and the trust invested in it. It would be better and fairer to make the whole process transparent and available for any member of the public to take part in.

It is integral to my argument, that the process I am proposing would not only be beneficial to the wide general public, but beneficial to Nominet too, with prospect of increased revenues. This case of benefit for Nominet is detailed below, after the proposal has been outlined in the following section. (continued...)

 

[Siusaidh]

A proposed new system:


I propose that Nominet opens each dropping name to market demand and makes the whole process transparent and available for any member of the public to take part in. I think *everyone* should have direct registration rights at the point a name becomes available, at whatever the market price turns out to be for a domain, based on a fair auction. You want it? You buy it. And you pay the market price, whatever that turns out to be. And Nominet or its charities get a market revenue closer to what the domain is really worth. In practice, auctions would only occur for a limited number of domain names each day, where a bid triggers an auction. All other names – the vast majority – would simply become available for manual registration by registrars as usual.

The process:

1. Nominet to release an advance list of names due to drop for each given day and keep them available for ten days.

2. Starter 'bids' of, say £50 minimum, made during that 10-day period, would trigger an auction that would commence on the eleventh day. I propose the £50 starting bid to minimize the volume of names going to auction, and stop the process being unwieldy.

3. The auction of the name would be for 5 days, open to any member of the public to bid on, subject to a returnable deposit.

4. As part of the auction process, each bidder would have to designate a registrar who the winning bidder would have the domain assigned to.

5. Once the auction begins, the market simply takes over. It sells straight off for what people are willing to pay.


Financial Model:

How many domains per day would people actually bid £50 for to initiate bidding? I'd hazard a guess at around 100-200. All the rest would drop and be available as usual. Of course, of you wanted to draw in additional volume, the starting bid could be lowered to £25.

It would take a small team to run a procedure like this.

Let's imagine a possible day's sale:

£1000 x2 = £2000
£500 x10 = £5000
£250 x 15 = £3250
£100 x 30 = £3000
£50 x 60 = £3000

Daily Revenue = £16,250 (and I think I've been quite conservative about the prices: quite frequently domains in secondary auctions sell for many thousands of pounds – some recently for £20,000 or £30,000 each)

Annual Revenue = £5,931,250

Pretty obviously that would pay for the service, so the primary issue of greater fairness would have been achieved. However, I would argue that potentially this model could generate significant addition revenue for Nominet.

On top of all that, Nominet would continue to have their regular £3-75 for all the rest of the dropping domains as usual.

But the new thing would be that you have a level playing field in terms of access. (Continued...)

 

[Siusaidh]

Cost of a Nominet Auction Platform:


Nominet would need to cost this, but I am convinced the relatively small volume of domains that presently constitute the target of scripts could be run by between 3 and 5 staff. If you're telling me an auction house on this basis for Nominet would be financially unviable, for £5 million pounds a year profit, then I would be amazed. In practice, I suspect the whole platform could be run for £250,000 a year once it has been set up, and maybe even less than that. I question the idea that the cost of running a daily auction for possibly no more than 100 domains would exceed the revenue you could raise. As mentioned above, Nominet can fine tune the volume of names being auctioned by varying the starting bid price that would trigger the auction.




Charity Option:


In addition, if Nominet does not want to be seen to be making profit from an auction system, they could create a not-for-profit auction site, where all revenues in excess of £3-75p a domain name go the running of the platform and then to charity. Brilliant outcome! In that situation, Nominet would simply be selling the registration for the same basic price as all Nominet names, so in their function as Registry their income would be consistent. The Registrars would still be involved as designated parties in the name, once released. There would be no more or less monopoly than under the present system. Competition would still exist: registrar competition would be involved in who people chose to nominate for their designated registrar when they bid.

There are obvious benefits in the charity route (a) because it’s great to benefit charities (b) because it’s good for Nominet’s own ethos and identity (c) because it would remove any criticisms of ‘profiteering’ from the auction process. I don’t personally view it as profiteering. I think it is simply market access and market demand. I believe there is scope for Nominet to benefit financially from the auction process. Or to benefit and also benefit charities in a shared approach.

But the Charity route is one option.



Comments on this process:


I believe the process I propose would make extra money for Nominet. Since many caught domains end up being auctioned off already, it could be argued that a centralised auction system would simply give the wider public access at the first stage of release. It might also reduce ‘warehousing’ of domains by speculators.

This would not be a huge operation. It would involve a miniscule volume of names compared with the volume Nominet already processes, with interfaces for hundreds of thousands of registrants. An auction platform on this modest scale would not be a major problem to operate. However, this small volume of names each day attracts disproportionate attention on Nominet’s systems at present, attracting significant volumes of scripts, and my proposal is that the script option would be phased out in favour of a market-driven auction of the most sought after domains.

Would registrars have grounds to complain if a few domains were sold directly by the Registry? I don’t believe they would have grounds to, because they would not lose out. With the system I propose, part of the bidding process would require nominating a receiving registrar, and at the point of registration that is where the domain goes, with the bidder as registrant. No ongoing support costs for Nominet, more than for any other domain. And the registrant to pay the standard registrar’s fee for the domain on their tag. So registrars would get their revenue stream as usual, including all future renewals and any services they provided.

A critic (or vested interest) might say that Nominet running auctions for names where multiple people want the same name would mean it is acting as registrar. No. Nominet already has a monopoly on selling every single .uk related domain at registration point. But selling a few of those names at whatever price the market dictates would not have to end the Registry/Registrar set up. Bidders having to designate a registrar for any winning bid would protect that system. A Nominet auction system would not harm Nominet or the registrar model. It would improve Nominet’s transparency, its fairness and public interest ethos, its profits, and arguably could help fund its charitable giving as well. Nominet would just keep doing what it already does – selling registrations. Nominet would not be determining the value of any domain themselves, but simply letting the market decide.

The process would not be anti-competitive as some people complain. If anything, competition to purchase the dropping domains would be broadened to anyone in the public, and not the more limited pool of dropcatchers. Therefore competition would actually be increased. Whether accessed by dropcatchers or by the general public, Nominet would still be paid, just without the premium being creamed off by the dropcatchers. There would be more open competition if anyone could compete for names at the point of a name dropping.

The competitive element would remain the range of services a designated registrar provided, as indeed it is at present. Bidders would designate the registrar they felt offered the most competitive and attractive range of services.

In terms of public interest, it would be far more convenient for the internet community and users of domains. Nominet has previously highlighted the problem of cybersquatters. Instead of cyber-squatters sitting on the domain names for in some cases years, the highest bidder would get immediate access to the names they’d won in a Nominet auction. It would reduce ‘warehousing’ and cyber-squatting, with access to domains sometimes blocked for years on end by speculators waiting for the right price. While this auction model would not end cybersquatting, it would reduce it, and at least give anyone a fair chance to gain immediate access to a domain at fair market price.

Frankly, everybody but the cyber-squatters would be a winner in my proposed system. Namedrop access would be widened to everyone. Registrants could access their desired domain straightaway. Registrars would have been designated, so their role would continue. And Nominet would increase its revenue at the cost of cybersquatters.

The whole name chase by scripts is insane, because it’s just not necessary. Nor is it fair. It excludes most people from the process. People then rely on whim and warehousing and however long the speculator squats on the name. It doesn’t have to be that way. It ought not to be, in terms of public interest and fair access. I think it's the wide general public and ordinary internet users who should be put first in the administration of the UK namespace. In addition, all the hassle with DAC and volume of scripts would be reduced overnight, with the motive to drop catch falling towards almost zero. Or the scripts could even be removed altogether, with the auction access used as justification.

A transparent process open to all would not only be incontestably fair, but would also make significant profit for Nominet and/or its charities. Why sell popular domain names for £3.75 when you can sell maybe 100 each day for between £50 and £1000s (or whatever volume you choose to operate at)? If a secondary market of dropcatchers is going to do that to the domains anyway, why hand over the profit to them, when you can make the profit yourself, and have a fairer system as well?


Profit for Nominet or its charities would be excellent. That would be a collateral gain.

But the main gain for Nominet would be in public image and perception of fairness to the largest number of people.



Author: Susannah Clark. Nominet member operating as a non-profit with the tag ‘GirlNextDoor’.

Details: Registered nurse, former prison governor and head teacher; novelist; has campaigned for good process and protocols in the interests of ordinary internet users; been an elected representative of Icann At Large. Led the campaign against trademark abuse in the .info name release.

 

[ian]

Whilst I admire the great amount of dedication and effort you have put in; you are advocating an approach that has Nominet sell domains (of which we are merely custodians of) that increases their bottom line, taking away from tens, if not hundreds of small businesses in favour of a company with a higher than average salary and a relatively recent closure of their charity fund in the pure and unapologetic pursuit of profit?

You justify through reasoning of 'fairness', but an auction model is only fair to those who can afford it, and a small handful will buy the majority and create a secondary market value much higher than it presently is.

The 'fairest' model would be allowing any validated individual, member or otherwise, to apply for a domain, and a lottery based selection take place. In reality, Nominet do not want, nor have the capacity to vet and enforce this.

This leads to the only possible solution, and it isn't one of 'fairness', it is one of taking strain away from the present system and ignoring compliance; an RoR model, with tiers based on credit limits to favour their buddies and those that can afford it. This is a deal done, regardless of the incredible effort you or anyone else puts in, imo.

 

[Fred Steven]

I think if an auction model was the route to go, then the proceeds after expenses should go to charity, how about loading all the charity registration numbers and assigning one randomly at each domain sale

 

[ANY-Web]

There is already an established auction model run by a government body:
https://www.dvlaauction.co.uk/index.php/live-auction/

Susannah may want to look into how it is funded and how the proceeds are allocated.

These auctions by the DVLA are widely advertised and have the effect of the public being aware of the value of car number plates.

If Nominet were to adopt a running daily auction approach (as advocated by Susannah) with monthly premium auctions for the top contested domain names (advertised in the print media) this could be a game changer for everybody.

It could halt the decline of the .uk namespace, create greater awareness among the public, raise funds for the government, Nominet and charities, and provide fairer access for everybody to expiring domain names.

Nominet have the technology for making such auctions happen.
A thriving aftermarket for domain names should be in everybody's interest.

 

[davedevelopment]

Regardless of the rest of the proposals, I think it would be fair to stop referring to dropcatching systems as "scripts"? I and I think many others have poured considerable time and energy in to developing their systems and while I do sometimes think it's a little wild west, I'd consider all of the top catchers to be "professionals developing bespoke software", rather than the implied "kids with their scripts".

 

[Whois-Search]

While many would be in favour of Nominet running a charity auction...

For Nominet to build something like the Estonian registry:

https://www.internet.ee/domain-auctions

It is just not feasible in .uk for the following reasons:

1. Nominet already disbanded the Nominet Trust to dispose of surplus capital. The trust was costing over £1 million per year to run it. What it has now is a few people doing expensive PR where Nominet can get name recognition by donating to specific initiatives. At the same time surplus money is being invested straight in to cyber security (which will make millions not thousands from drops):
https://www.ceo-review.com/2019-changing-the-game

2. To allow a Nominet auction period you would need to extend the expiry period. You would need a quiet period where registrants were not allowed to renew the names (otherwise how can they auction it). That would require another consultation and a contract change with registrants. Note: that is why in gTLDs you have a registrar grace period of 0-45 days and the registrar decides when it goes to auction (which is something Nominet wants instead of 90 days):
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-lifecycle-2012-02-25-en

3. There is just not enough money in it for Nominet or Godaddy to do it. I don’t agree with the £5 million figure above. Even Domainlore.uk has only got to £3 million in 10 years! Godaddy now controls over 50% of all .uk names. Will it let Nominet auction it’s expired names off without giving it anything? Large Registrars (Godaddy) are much better at taking names to auction and dealing with the IP risk(s). How can Nominet auction off Trademark brand names for example? See “ GoDaddy Auctions® sellers are responsible for ensuring that offered domain names do not infringe on third-party trademarks. “ https://uk.auctions.godaddy.com/

However the real reasons .uk names are not auctioned (by registrars) at the moment are:

(a) the explicit consent clause in the ACP registrar agreement required to take the name

(b) the whole tag change and registrant transfer process is alien to most big registrars (they are used to auctioning names with EPP codes at Godaddy etc)

 

[Gill]

However the real reasons .uk names are not auctioned (by registrars) at the moment are:

(a) the explicit consent clause in the RA agreement required to take the name

Andrew, have you any evidence that has changed i.e. the big registrars are now adding a clause to allow them to take ownership before deletion?

 

[Whois-Search]

Andrew, have you any evidence that has changed i.e. the big registrars are now adding a clause to allow them to take ownership before deletion?

I haven’t seen any registrar do it explicitly like the Nominet clause says:

E.3.6. You may, no earlier than 30 days after the expiry of a domain name on an Accredited Channel Partner Tag, take steps to transfer the domain name into your name, provided that you have previously informed the Registrant that you intend to do this and obtained their explicit consent to your doing so. Such consent must be obtained no earlier than 30 days before the date on which the domain name is due to expire, and no later than 30 days after the date on which the domain name expired. Even if you transfer a domain name in these circumstances, the original Registrant of the domain name must always retain the right to renew the domain name in question as set out in paragraph B.1.13 above. You may not transfer a domain name into the name of a third party under this paragraph

https://media.nominet.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/UK-Registry-Registrar-Agreement-1.pdf

However what I have seen is ICANN registrars do it for gTLDs like .com .net .org

Enom for example have this in their Registrant agreement:

10. EXPIRATION OF A DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION

B. After the reactivation period, if any, we may:

iii. If we auctioned the domain name services to a third party, we may transfer the domain name registration services to such third party. In which case, the third party who won the auction for the domain name services will control the domain name services, including control over the WHOIS information and the DNS settings. You may recover the domain name registration services prior to the end of the reactivation period, as such reactivation period applied to you. We are not obliged to contact you to alert you that the domain name registration services are or were auctioned. We do not have to pay you any of the proceeds we may earn as a result of such an auction.

https://www.enom.com/terms/agreement.aspx

 

[Siusaidh]

1. Nominet already disbanded the Nominet Trust to dispose of surplus capital. The trust was costing over £1 million per year to run it.

Thank you very much for your post. I really like the clarity and the logical analysis. (Of course, I may not completely agree with you!)

The driving issue is wider access at the time when domains drop. The charity angle is secondary, and therefore not a deal-breaker. The challenge of distributing money to charities does not seem to me to = "It is just not feasible in the UK" (a) because if necessary the charity angle can be set aside; (b) tens of thousands of people and companies give to charities - it happens all the time - and the cost of administering gifts to charity can be tailored to the way one chooses to do that. No way does it have to cost over £1 million per year to run it. If Nominet in the future can make exponentially more from cyber security, and then give from those millions, then the surplus from the auction approach could be channelled into that if you prefer that approach. But, as I say, the whole charity option would be icing on the cake - it has no bearings on the feasibility of the overwhelming imperative to make the process fairer and give wider access to far more people when names drop. So with respect (and I do respect you) I don't accept your point 1.

2. To allow a Nominet auction period you would need to extend the expiry period. You would need a quiet period where registrants were not allowed to renew the names (otherwise how can they auction it).

Again, that does not make an auction approach "just not feasible". Either, yes, you have a quiet period added on the end, or you shorten the expiry period before hand, or half and half, so the time span is not dramatically different overall. All you need is a window of time for bids to trigger an auction process for 0.5% of names, and that could occur in the last 5 or 10 days before expiry, and the other 99.5% of names would just drop normally because people don't want to bid on them, and if there is any sort of time lag for the names going through to auction, then so be it. It's hardly 'just not feasible'.

[a quiet period] would require another consultation and a contract change with registrants.

Well yes, new structures would mean changes to exact contracts for registrants. However I really don't see that as a deal-breaker, because terms and conditions are frequently changed by companies, and the proposed changes would not harm the rights of any registrant who is allowing their domain to expire. Nominet has the authority, as the rule setter, to change process - we saw that last June with the RoR. So again, I don't really accept that your point 2 makes the auction model unfeasible. The changes, I am absolutely sure, could be worked through and implemented. They could also be justified to government and the media pretty easily.

3. ...I don’t agree with the £5 million figure above.

I'm not sure I do either - there is no precise way of knowing. What is abundantly clear is that it would be far more than £3-75p a domain. Even if it was only a quarter of the volume I postulated, that would easily fund an auction model, and be feasible, and as I have already said, the overriding issue is the 'fairness of access' principle, not the amount of surplus achievable, though any surplus would be useful for Nominet.

Godaddy now controls over 50% of all .uk names. Will it let Nominet auction it’s expired names off without giving it anything?

Excuse me? The UK's namespace should be run on GoDaddy's authority? It's not GoDaddy's right to "allow" Nominet to run the UK's DNS. Nominet is tasked with running the DNS, and it's up to Nominet what it "allows". Obviously I recognise the influence big registrars have, even on Nominet's Board, and that's why I think there is a big chance of a new RoR-style model being adopted. But to be clear, the UK namespace is not intended to operate for the benefit of these big registrars - it is intended to operate for the benefit of the British public and other internet users who want to use UK domains. Once Nominet defines an auction model, GoDaddy will go with it, because it will not want competitors to steal their lead in domain volume. I think that's what you would see: more competition, as Registrars advertise and offer their services, to persuade bidders to choose them as nominated registrar if they get the highest bid.

Fundamentally the DNS is/should be run for everyone, not for the sake of Registrars (or indeed, for the small group of name-catchers dominating the market recently). If I regard your argument here, then I would be proposing policy that consolidates GoDaddy's influence in this market. I believe it should go the other way. Registrars should be the servants of the system, the system should not be the servant of the registrars. So, no, I do not accept the argument that GoDaddy 'will not let' Nominet introduce its own auction system.

With regard to Trademark infringement, you could say that that applies already every time Nominet goes ahead and executes the registration of any of its millions of names. It does not suddenly become a risk because of the auction process. It is perfectly possible to write in a get-out in the contracts of sale, to the effect that buyers must assure themselves that they are not infringing trademarks, and if they do, the liability is accepted as theirs. After all, that is the case even right now if a name is challenged in that way. They would have to surrender the name. The responsibility for trademark infringement lies with the person who chooses to register a name and use it. Indeed, until they do anything with it, and put it online, it is just a string of code. The infringement occurs when the name gets used by the registrant. Nominet are not selling a domain for it to be used to infringe trademark. They are just selling a domain. Caveat Emptor.

* * * * *

Your concluding comments (a) and (b) a not impossible to overcome. I do agree with consent to terms and conditions being mandatory (to protect against abusive use... shame that was waived last June when big registrars registered hundreds of thousands of .uk domains without getting that consent). But I think you know and I know that terms and conditions can evolve to fit the process. If a bidder has designated a named registrar to handle their domain prior to winning the auction, then while the tag can be allocated to the registrar, consent (flagged up in the auction rules) can still be required by the registrar before the domain can be used, and if consent is not accepted then the name would return to Nominet's pool.

As for (b), I don't care if "the whole tag change and registrant transfer process is alien to most big registrars". They will have to get used to it, if they want continued access to the UK market. And they will. They will adapt in whatever way enables them to sustain their market share.

Do you know what I think? I think that Nominet, and the Registrar industry, and even some of us here have over the years been "institutionalised" to think there is no other way. We have supposed that the shambolic name-chase for dropping domains is okay, because in the bubble-world of Nominet and the dropcatchers, it seems like it's always been the way things are done. But look at the mayhem this week. Look further at the process itself, and my proposal seems to me to be an elephant in the room or an emperor with no clothes. "It's always been this way." It doesn't have to.

Giving ordinary citizens direct access to the UK's domains when they become available is simply fairer. All other counter-arguments are secondary.

It is positive and it is feasible.

 

[Siusaidh]

In your conversation with Gill (if I may engage)

However what I have seen is ICANN registrars do it for gTLDs like .com .net .org

Registrars are custodians and guardians of people's registered domains.

Why on earth should they have a right to auction those names and sell them to other people, and get or share in profit for themselves?

Why authorise the profit from auctioning expiring domains to go to these big Registrars, when the same profit could go to Nominet?

 

[Whois-Search]

The driving issue is wider access at the time when domains drop.

While I agree, Nominet will only see wider access being achieved through it's registrar channel (not by itself).

No way does it have to cost over £1 million per year to run it.

I was referring to the actual running costs of the last Nominet Trust.

See 7 Feb 2018 Total exemption full accounts made up to 30 April 2017 (page 15):
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06578379/filing-history

Why would it make the same mistake twice? Ok it might now donated £250,000 to the Samaritans etc

However can you really see them monetising the expiry stream and donating it out the company?
If anything they would keep the profit and acquire cyber security companies with it !

Well yes, new structures would mean changes to exact contracts for registrants. However I really don't see that as a deal-breaker, because terms and conditions are frequently changed by companies, and the proposed changes would not harm the rights of any registrant who is allowing their domain to expire. Nominet has the authority, as the rule setter, to change process - we saw that last June with the RoR. So again, I don't really accept that your point 2 makes the auction model unfeasible. The changes, I am absolutely sure, could be worked through and implemented. They could also be justified to government and the media pretty easily.

Nominet would need to do what the Estonian's describe:

'If the registrant still has not renewed the domain by the end of the 30-day deletion period, the domain name is deleted from the registry and will go on an domain auction in the .ee auction portal. The domain auction lasts 24 hours (00:00-23: 59 GMT + 2). Domains that receive no bids within 24 hours will be released and are freely available for registration to anyone interested in the “first-come, first-served” principle.'

See Number 27. https://www.internet.ee/help-and-info/faq#III__ee_domain_auctions

However to achieve that you have got to get around a number of contractual issues .. for example the E.3.6 clause I pointed out above. It would require another consultation and the registrant / registrar agreements changing.

This consultation is about a 'Drop List' only and that is what we are getting.

I'm not sure I do either - there is no precise way of knowing. What is abundantly clear is that it would be far more than £3-75p a domain. Even if it was only a quarter of the volume I postulated, that would easily fund an auction model, and be feasible, and as I have already said, the overriding issue is the 'fairness of access' principle, not the amount of surplus achievable, though any surplus would be useful for Nominet.

Nominet currently have a £99 million surplus.

See Page 60 https://media.nominet.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/26113806/Nominet+Annual+Account+and+Report.pdf

If Nominet wanted to spend that on 'fairness of access' they would have done it by now.

Excuse me? The UK's namespace should be run on GoDaddy's authority? It's not GoDaddy's right to "allow" Nominet to run the UK's DNS. Nominet is tasked with running the DNS, and it's up to Nominet what it "allows".

Godaddy must look after 7+ million .uk names bringing in millions of pounds of revenue.
If you are going to fundamentally change the expiry process to include an 'auction'..
Then don't you think Godaddy would at least be consulted as a Key Partner?

Obviously I recognise the influence big registrars have, even on Nominet's Board, and that's why I think there is a big chance of a new RoR-style model being adopted.

Actually those elected non-executive directors would be conflicted and not allowed to vote on it.
The Executive at Nominet decides what happens and will put the proposal before the board (drafted).

But to be clear, the UK namespace is not intended to operate for the benefit of these big registrars - it is intended to operate for the benefit of the British public and other internet users who want to use UK domains. Once Nominet defines an auction model, GoDaddy will go with it, because it will not want competitors to steal their lead in domain volume. I think that's what you would see: more competition, as Registrars advertise and offer their services, to persuade bidders to choose them as nominated registrar if they get the highest bid.

If Godaddy has it's own auction platform (for registrants): https://uk.auctions.godaddy.com/
Why would it promote the auction of a registry? https://www.internet.ee/domain-auctions

Now ok it might allow transfers in from the registry auctions...
However there is nothing in it for them apart from a transfer/renewal ?

 

[Whois-Search]

Fundamentally the DNS is/should be run for everyone, not for the sake of Registrars (or indeed, for the small group of name-catchers dominating the market recently). If I regard your argument here, then I would be proposing policy that consolidates GoDaddy's influence in this market. I believe it should go the other way. Registrars should be the servants of the system, the system should not be the servant of the registrars. So, no, I do not accept the argument that GoDaddy 'will not let' Nominet introduce its own auction system.

In an ideal world yes. However we live in the real world where money talks.
I don't like it either but that's just the way they operate.
The Key Partner events at Nominet have become part and parcel of the policy process.
Even .uk was released because the large registrars wanted it.

With regard to Trademark infringement, you could say that that applies already every time Nominet goes ahead and executes the registration of any of its millions of names. It does not suddenly become a risk because of the auction process. It is perfectly possible to write in a get-out in the contracts of sale, to the effect that buyers must assure themselves that they are not infringing trademarks, and if they do, the liability is accepted as theirs. After all, that is the case even right now if a name is challenged in that way. They would have to surrender the name. The responsibility for trademark infringement lies with the person who chooses to register a name and use it. Indeed, until they do anything with it, and put it online, it is just a string of code. The infringement occurs when the name gets used by the registrant. Nominet are not selling a domain for it to be used to infringe trademark. They are just selling a domain. Caveat Emptor.

Actually Nominet contractually defers it's liability to the registrant and the registrar.
Then it runs the DRS process to protect itself from Court claims.
However if Nominet is to auction PizzaHut.uk like that dropped the other day it would soon find itself in court.

Your concluding comments (a) and (b) a not impossible to overcome. I do agree with consent to terms and conditions being mandatory (to protect against abusive use... shame that was waived last June when big registrars registered hundreds of thousands of .uk domains without getting that consent). But I think you know and I know that terms and conditions can evolve to fit the process. If a bidder has designated a named registrar to handle their domain prior to winning the auction, then while the tag can be allocated to the registrar, consent (flagged up in the auction rules) can still be required by the registrar before the domain can be used, and if consent is not accepted then the name would return to Nominet's pool.

The current clause is for the registrant of the name to explicitly agree for the name to be transferred.
If the registrar is looking for consent to auction it off... that is never going to happen in a million years?

As for (b), I don't care if "the whole tag change and registrant transfer process is alien to most big registrars". They will have to get used to it, if they want continued access to the UK market. And they will. They will adapt in whatever way enables them to sustain their market share.

Have you sold a .uk name via Godaddy recently? I did last week and got this email:

"I've received payment in the amount of $XXXXX. We are now ready to move to the next steps. I will need you to unlock the domain and request the domain’s EPP/authorization code. You will request this code from your current Registrar online within your domains account or by contacting their support team. Once you obtained this code please forward the authorization code to me by responding to this email."

You see... The .uk market is far too small compared to .com for them to even care about it.

Do you know what I think? I think that Nominet, and the Registrar industry, and even some of us here have over the years been "institutionalised" to think there is no other way. We have supposed that the shambolic name-chase for dropping domains is okay, because in the bubble-world of Nominet and the dropcatchers, it seems like it's always been the way things are done. But look at the mayhem this week. Look further at the process itself, and my proposal seems to me to be an elephant in the room or an emperor with no clothes. "It's always been this way." It doesn't have to. Giving ordinary citizens direct access to the UK's domains when they become available is simply fairer. All other counter-arguments are secondary.

An auction would require the general public to become educated about .uk domain names....

Meanwhile the likes of Tool.domains would still buy the traffic names off the Nominet auctions...

You might attract some attention with the premium names like flowers.uk but even then they would be sold trade (deepest pockets) as in Car number plates.

 

[Siusaidh]

Andrew,

Whatever the differences in view we may have (and in terms of values I don't think they're different) I really appreciate all the input you have given me. I love your clarity of thought, and your sense of realpolitik, and you have given me so much to think about. I already instinctively trust you because of the way you conduct transactions, and I take your observations seriously.

In any case, in those realpolitik terms I think you are probably right about more likely outcomes.

Also, if I may add, I don't like promoting a proposal that would be negative for many people here, and over many years I have been fond of the spirit and initiative of many people who catch domains, and have loved the chase myself. There are some great people here on this forum which I joined (with a different username) back in 2011. So I feel bad about being the unpopular one, risking people's financial models. I simply think the fair operation of the DNS raises principles that are bigger than this forum and the relatively small name-catching community.

I am totally appalled by the 'anything-goes' mayhem of these past few weeks, and another week or more to come (not excluding Jan 30th...) and I just don't thing the status quo is tenable.

Anyway, thank you.

Susannah