Nominet announces new policy consultation for expiring .UK domains

[Siusaidh]

Some people think I'm obsessed with a single issue. I'm not. I'm obsessed with fair process. My concern with this episode of the mass-registrations is that I think it demonstrates the way 'arrangements' between Registries and really large Registrars can be damaging to the public perception of due process. I am not being negative in this. I want Nominet to flourish. But the UK namespace is not the private fiefdom of a few big tech companies. It is UK national infrastructure. It is vital it is run with best standards that can be trusted. If these large registrars can hijack agreed process, and do their own thing (and the Executive basically said it wasn't Nominet's business - even when the RRA clauses were circumvented - it was up to the big companies to police themselves)... if the largest registrars can dominate policy outcomes to this extent, then that is very concerning... not only in the past but for the future as well.

 

[Siusaidh]

One further point for reflection:

If clear rules that apply to everyone can be circumvented and not enforced when large Registrars are left to make their own judgments (for example setting aside the *rule* that the registrants must themselves request domains registered in their own names)... and if the extreme actions of large Registrars can be allowed to disrupt agreed processes set out for everyone else (the release of all unwanted .uk domains after 5 years)...

What kind of culture and message does that send out to other parties who try to circumvent Nominet rules and AUP, and hope the rules won't be enforced on them either?

If the biggest business partners can circumvent the agreed rules, in search of profit... and their actions go unchallenged... with Nominet saying "it's up to them"...

Why are we surprised if others, also seeking profit, bypass agreed rules too?

Example has to start with how the commercially rich and powerful are allowed to behave, and required to adhere to set down rules.

 

[Edwin]

Some people think I'm obsessed with a single issue. I'm not. I'm obsessed with fair process.

If that's the case, then - and I say this with genuine respect - why in the world are you putting yourself forward as a non-executive director candidate?

Going by their past behaviour, there is a veritable Everest of evidence to demonstrate that Nominet has very little regard for fair process. You will get nowhere trying to fight them. Nobody else ever has, despite many putting in immense effort over many, many years. It's like trying to wrestle blancmange.

 

[Kaleido]

Brit registry is the cash cow that keeps on giving

UK internet registry operator Nominet has decided to reform the way in which expired .uk domains are released and, to no one's surprise, has decided that the best solution is one that will result in it receiving millions of pounds in profit.

Last week, the organisation published what it says is a "consultation" on the process of making expired domains available, though industry insiders soon discovered that a decision had already been made.

Rather than let domains expire and be picked up by registered Nominet members who then market and sell the domains to you and me - a vital revenue source for many of those members - Nominet has decided it should run an auction process where the highest bidder wins and the registry keeps all the money.

 

[Murray]

Brit registry is the cash cow that keeps on giving

Great article

 

[diablo]

Brit registry is the cash cow that keeps on giving

UK internet registry operator Nominet has decided to reform the way in which expired .uk domains are released and, to no one's surprise, has decided that the best solution is one that will result in it receiving millions of pounds in profit.

Last week, the organisation published what it says is a "consultation" on the process of making expired domains available, though industry insiders soon discovered that a decision had already been made.

"The purpose appears to be to allow Nominet's executives to play at being businesspeople without taking any of the commercial risks, because the UK registry – which is an effective monopoly – provides a massive financial cushion."

 

[philiporchard]

If anyone thinks Helptobuy is too much of an outlying example lets use Bars.co.uk. Currently on auction at £2,050.

I've only just jumped to the last page on this thread, but I was interest to know what the comment about bars.co.uk was about?

Was it the fact it stared at £1,100? or just the fact it is over £2k?

 

[Derek]

I've only just jumped to the last page on this thread, but I was interest to know what the comment about bars.co.uk was about?

Was it the fact it stared at £1,100? or just the fact it is over £2k?

I'm just using the most recent 4 figure drop I can find.

If people think they can come up with a way to stop cheating in some sort of lottery draw then lets see how we do it with this example.

Gambling laws prevent you charging a fee to enter that you won't get back.

So the only other option would be a lottery draw thats free to enter, with the winner paying some sort of registration fee. If I know the domain can be flipped for £2000+ why wouldn't I enter with 100's of accounts?

 

[diablo]

[QUOTE="Derek, post: 634488, member: 17378"

Gambling laws prevent you charging a fee to enter that you won't get back.

[/QUOTE]

No they don't. The Gambling Act 2005 allows lotteries in which persons are required to pay to participate. You just need to have the appropriate licence.

I'm not advocating for a lottery, just correcting your error.

https://fnf.org.uk/phocadownload/jo...uments-gambling-commission-guidance-notes.pdf

 

[Systreg]

I was given this link if anyone wants to sign a petition:

http://www.agm.org.uk

 

[Siusaidh]

Yes, Andrew launched this petition today. It needs 5% of votes OR 100 members to sign. 11 have signed in the first few hours. The problem is that the voting system is so weighted in favour of the very large registrars, that unless they were on board, any petition or extraordinary meeting that was called could be a statement of members' feelings (and reasoned arguments) but could be blocked by large companies. But I think members have a right to put their case on their own initiative and on their own terms, and not just be 'handled' and 'navigated' by Nominet through its own chosen processes. There is a case for an extraordinary meeting. I see no reason why there shouldn't be a counter narrative. After all, why should anyone be afraid of open process? Does everything always have to be controlled from the top? As it impacts on ordinary registrars' real lives, at a crucial time in the history of UK domains, and a crucial time of pandemic, I think it's pretty reasonable if an extraordinary meeting is called. The circumstances ARE extraordinary in the history of the UK namespace and for the secondary market.

Because I always try to deal in realpolitik, I'll be honest, I think the Nominet executive have their own momentum and I believe they're through with what has gone before. But I think people deserve a hearing, whether a petition or a meeting. If Adelere is signing it, that's good enough for me - not because I am backing any specific methodology - I'm increasingly aware of multiple problems and challenges in all this and what I want is simply fair process and I want to hear what people suggest - but Adelere is a man of decency and honour, who has treated me very well in transactions. I don't think it's my place to be partisan at this time, but I listen to the impact these changes may have, and I think people deserve a hearing... on a platform they choose to call. Are there 88 more members who will put their names to this? I see no reason why this ought not go beyond a petition to a dedicated meeting, where time could be allowed for everyone who wants to speak, even if it takes all day, and where questions should be raised, and answers required, however uncomfortable that may be.

 

[mcrick]

It went beyond that, it was actually very nasty

Untrue.

"perhaps as you’re not used to being challenged"

What was actually stated: "Your decision to stand isn’t being criticised and is welcomed. In my opinion you seem to lack having done basic research about the one main issue you repeatedly reference and, when presented with discourse and evidence contrary to your views, you elect not to respond to it perhaps as you’re not used to being challenged to the extent you might have to consider rethinking your statements or opinions."

"you’re uncomfortable with yourself."

What was actually stated: "I presume you are intelligent enough to accept that people aren’t oblivious. Consequentially, and in my opinion, your choice never to mention it at all (I am certainly not talking about mentioning it all the time) might infer to some that you’re uncomfortable with yourself."

"you're unable to cope"

What was actually stated: "You haven’t mention the “I wanted to guard against any negative questions, designed to marginalise me, because I may challenge the status quo...” part. Everyone attending the Q&A will receive the same questions. I am sad you feel unable to cope with that in a live environment, as I will be about anyone else who decided not to participate either.

"you dominated discussion in birmingham"

What was actually stated: "One person has told me he felt you dominated discussion at the Birmingham consultation last year but he often likes to be the centre of attention so maybe you pipped him to the post that day. I wasn’t there to observe."

"because you didn't make an issue of your gender you clearly have an issue with it"

(paraphrasing)

What was actually stated: "I accept your point that you might not want it to be an issue *for you* but by not featuring yourself in your own video in vision, by not attending the live Q&A session and by having never mentioned your gender once in passing here as far as I know, I feel you also aren’t contributing to it not becoming an issue in the minds of some when it’s conspicuous. Clearly your choice but you are now kindly asking to be elected to a Board of Directors of a medium sized company and some voters might like to know you’re self confident and comfortable in yourself *in person* by seeing how you actually come across *as the person you are*, not through published word only. Many of them won’t be AcornDomains members."

These things aren't said by chance they're meant to unnerve, cause self-doubt and anxiety

I can't say it's personal because sadly he seems to do it to everyone

I don't think any of the above was asked unfairly and certainly none of it was said derogatorily. One shouldn't feel unable to ask questions that might be awkward when they directly relate to factual issues at hand. Susannah herself has repeatedly stated that she isn't afraid to do the same. Remain respectful and don't be ashamed of asking what some might consider to be difficult questions if you ask them with a genuine reason. If you don't accept my reasonings as already stated then that's your prerogatives.

Who the fuck do you think you are!?
Fuck your iq and fuck your Britishness!
This is completely unrelated, unsolicited, and a personal matter; one could even find it offensive and discriminatory.
No, most normal people don't think about what you raised and really don't care.
You have a problem with Bulgarians, now transgenders... anyone that doesn't look like you I assume.
When is your next ukip party meeting?
Fuck you you twat!
* you can ban me from this forum, I don't care anymore

This is absolutely incorrect. I have no problem with Bulgarians (and have never suggested I did). I have no problem with transgenders, transexuals or transvestites either on the basis of those statuses (and also never suggested that I did).

 

[Murray]

Skimmed through that, sorry it's a waste of time to read you lie

You know what you were doing, I know what you were doing

You give yourself an out by dressing up things you say around it you aren't stupid, nasty but not stupid.

 

[mcrick]

That comment is total win, Rob.

And even if they did not foresee it happening in October 2017 with Namesco and 123-Reg (which I find totally unbelievable with regard to the Executive), when they re-ran the promo in June 2019, that was completely "eyes open" - they'd seen what had happened in October 2017, and they didn't think it would happen again in June 2019?! That's complete nonsense.

This was blatant facilitation of mass-registrations that they knew were almost certainly going to happen.

When the agreed and promised 5 years were up, and the unclaimed .uk domains became available, 2,800,000 domains were not released because they'd been mass-registered without the request of the registrants themselves - totally contrary in my view to several RRA clauses (specifically Clause 3.2 and 3.2.3, and also 3.2.6, 2.8 and 2.8.1).

Quite obviously the Board would have realised on subsequent occasions that some retail registrars might engage in bulk registering domain names for their customers using the free two years promotion. Naturally it would have been discussed and felt that as long as registrars acted in accordance with the RRA, as has already been discussed but you haven't specifically commented on, it was a potential benefit for Rights holders.

What part of "You must not request a transaction if the Registrant you identify to us in the transaction has not instructed or requested you to act on its behalf" do they not understand?

They do understand that but you don't understand what's already been explained to you and have avoided, so far, commenting on it.

They were registering domains that the original registrants just didn't want and hadn't requested. By the end of September 2020 .uk will have haemorrhaged 2,300,000 domains from .uk's peak. The policy of 'laissez-faire' by Nominet (to boost registrations and just let those companies police themselves) brought disrepute but achieved almost nothing.

I am afraid you simply can't accurately state that such registrants didn't want these domain names because you couldn't possibly know this. If you did have such an amazing skill every registrar would wish you as their employee.

I cannot escape the personal view that what occurred here was really poor judgment. The free registrations helped these large companies as they went ahead with the circumvention of RRA rules, and then the Executive sat back and watched.

How exactly do you think it helped the registrars that participated (some with lots of DUM, some with far fewer) but didn't help their customers?

Some people think I'm obsessed with a single issue. I'm not. I'm obsessed with fair process.

Mainly what in your opinion was an unfair process relating to this single issue that began almost three years ago.

My concern with this episode of the mass-registrations is that I think it demonstrates the way 'arrangements' between Registries and really large Registrars can be damaging to the public perception of due process. I am not being negative in this. I want Nominet to flourish. But the UK namespace is not the private fiefdom of a few big tech companies. It is UK national infrastructure. It is vital it is run with best standards that can be trusted. If these large registrars can hijack agreed process, and do their own thing (and the Executive basically said it wasn't Nominet's business - even when the RRA clauses were circumvented - it was up to the big companies to police themselves)... if the largest registrars can dominate policy outcomes to this extent, then that is very concerning... not only in the past but for the future as well.

I think you're failing to look at the wider picture of why the promotions were even offered. Nominet obviously wanted to give every Rights holder the best opportunities to take up their Rights prior to them being extinguished. You seem to be suggested that Nominet, and the retail registrars that acted as they did, should have done less to try to achieve this outcome.

Skimmed through that, sorry it's a waste of time to read you lie

You know what you were doing, I know what you were doing

You give yourself an out by dressing up things you say around it you aren't stupid, nasty but not stupid.

A very unpleasant response by you when challenged with the facts of what were actually posted rather than your disgraceful attempt at distorting it. Maybe you're the one with the problem.

 

[davedevelopment]

@mcrick having read back your own posts, do you just get self-righteousness, or do you actually consider that you might have said something inappropriate?

I'm not sure to make of you, you're good at putting your points forward, but you rarely consider others or their points and generally come across as severely dislikeable.

 

[Siusaidh]

David, David, David...

You've got it all the wrong way round.

Rather than interrogating me, tell your CEO to come here to this forum and answer questions from people here.

He's the person with questions to answer on a number of issues in my opinion.

 

[JMI]

The problem is I appreciate your passion but you've not really been involved in the UK domain industry long enough to appreciate certain nuances, this is often demonstrated often your lengthy posts.

 

[susannah]

Nah, I've been here since 2011, dear newbie. Been UK domaining since 1999. I was more interested in ICANN in the beginning, and very active in their politics, on the same old theme of rules, enforcement, laissez faire, and conflicts of interest. I gradually grew more concerned about the UK's namespace. But you're right, that I could write more succinctly!

 

[JMI]

Nah, I've been here since 2011, dear newbie. Been UK domaining since 1999. I was more interested in ICANN in the beginning, and very active in their politics, on the same old theme of rules, enforcement, laissez faire, and conflicts of interest. I gradually grew more concerned about the UK's namespace. But you're right, that I could write more succinctly!

So you've been hand reg/catching since 1999 - you must have quite a collection of great domains then?

 

[signature]

@mcrick

You need to be human and apologise when you are shown to be wrong. You are making some valid points and throwing some insult within it makes your points to be ignored.

We are different people with different views and we have a forum here to voice our views. All we can do is respect each other's view, agree on some and agree to disagree on others.