Nominet announces new policy consultation for expiring .UK domains

karlm said:

Has everyone given there feedback to nominet? if it will be taken on board is a different story, but i think we all have to make our feelings known:

https://surveys.nominet.org.uk/s/ZHP616/

Click to expand...

Can't agree more. If we don't make our voices heard then they will just assume nobody cares and press ahead.

If you want to stop it going down the auction route now is the time to tell them why this will benefit nobody except wealthy investors leaving most other people out of a chance of acquiring these domains (i.e. the people that pay the memberships). Personally I feel they need to raise it from £600 to something more like £1000 + to participate in economically controlled catching.

Yea he even mentioned that he has had no one contact him and say that they would not renew there membership if it went to a auction model. i for one would have no use for membership if this was the case.

Lovekraft said:

watching the webinar and it's been 95% focused on the auction route compared to economically controlled access to expiring domains. In fact they are almost forgetting to pretend it's not already decided.

Click to expand...

Definitely not already decided, except for the idea of publishing domain name drop times (either individual ones or one specific overall daily time) which is going ahead.

ian said:

Yes, very much came across that way; loads of detail regarding auctions, very little on the rest (Nick got a lot of figures wrong!).

Click to expand...

I find that some of the webinars come across as if those talking are winging it. That could be due to the fact they're not reading from a teleprompter so have to think about what to say, thus we get a lot of pauses and tripping over words. Later on the questions come and sometimes the presenters don't quite follow the context of the question because the questioner is not asking it live thus can't give further context or clarification. Finally they run out of time after the hour so people thing what a waste of an hour that was.

On this occasion clearly Nick was having mic issues and wasn't using the usual much better equipment they normally use.

Yes it could have been quite a lot better.

Lovekraft said:

Can't agree more. If we don't make our voices heard then they will just assume nobody cares and press ahead.

If you want to stop it going down the auction route now is the time to tell them why this will benefit nobody except wealthy investors leaving most other people out of a chance of acquiring these domains (i.e. the people that pay the memberships). Personally I feel they need to raise it from £600 to something more like £1000 + to participate in economically controlled catching.

Click to expand...

I'd have gone more with £1000 per drop catching tag p/a too. I might have even suggested it became £1000 for one single EPP connection, not for six which is what the proposal currently is for.

The way Nick expressed it, Nominet are resolved (in already agreed principle) to prioritise 'mitigation' before issues of lost membership etc.

Mitigation of cheating has become the number one priority.

Nick stated clearly that not a single hypothesised cheat has been stopped, and that at present Nominet regard it as impossible to prove anything, even though examples look dodgy. So 'how to mitigate' is the key persuasion point needed in the consultation. I think it's really unlikely they are going to stop at timed drop-list and see how that goes first.

In terms of mitigation, like Lovekraft I am quite surprised that they think £600 is going to stop the cheating. Maybe I'm wrong.

The key "defence" line for people who want the continued drop-catching option rather than the auction route is:

"The problem of just shifting the pressure from DAC to EPP: how can it be avoided?"

If 'mitigation' is everything at this point, then the consultation responses will need to promote specific ways of preventing people pooling EPP creates collectively, and presumably that is around far tighter methods of checking (though how do you check that 5 people or 10 people are 'friends' working together)?

I'd agree, reluctantly, that access may need to be restricted to accredited channel partners with far tighter accreditation, and possible suspension periods for partners whose associations merit investigation. But then you risk legal issues. You can't just suspend people on 'suspicion'. There would need to be more defined parhways that trigger sanctions/suspensions.

It's not my place to have a partisan view. For me it was a listening time and I genuinely want to hear people demonstrate practical ways to make things work, against those who are gaming the system.

One concern where I am historically partisan over the past 20 years, is my dislike of any close or incestuous relationships between Registries and large industry companies like the big Registrars.

There is a real problem brewing, if the largest 5 Registrars of UK domains decide to requisition 90% of near deletion domains to make profit themselves (or at least the saleable ones). I absolutely believe that large company influence should be proportionate, and they should be kept at arm's length in any model of disposing of domains. No large registrar involvement in an auction platform. And rules to limit their ability to sell expiring domains on their own platforms. My preference is for Nominet to be the sole 'exit portal' for all expired domains. How that is enforced is admittedly tricky, but it needs working on.

Nick Wenban-Smith said something similar, when he said he was "uncomfortable" about "gifting 90% of expiring domains to the top 10 Registrars" (I think it's fewer than 10 actually). Personally I think - given the history of the domain name industry worldwide over the past 2 decades - that this "arms length" policy should extend to major company representatives being kept off the Board. But I'm concerned that these policy changes may precipitate large Registrar moves to carve out profit for themselves from expiring domains before any money gets to Nominet's proposed charity recipients.

They didn't get time for my final two questions, which were asking for technical data on the difference between the current system and a time specific drop in terms of load on their servers. I'll await their email response but I imagine this is somewhat of a red herring. I also asked why Nick went as far as saying that 6000 (obviously we know their current suggestion is a maximum of 60) EPP connections wouldn't offer an advantage over 6 when "only one can get the time exactly right"!!!

Siusaidh said:

Nick Wenban-Smith said something similar, when he said he was "uncomfortable" about "gifting 90% of expiring domains to the top 10 Registrars" (I think it's fewer than 10 actually).

Click to expand...

I imagine his desk was empty by the time he returned to it.

Siusaidh said:

If 'mitigation' is everything at this point, then the consultation responses will need to promote specific ways of preventing people pooling EPP creates collectively, and presumably that is around far tighter methods of checking (though how do you check that 5 people or 10 people are 'friends' working together)?

Click to expand...

Mitigation is for the spiralling numbers of memberships created to incur the benefit of DAC and EPP. Remove the requirement of the DAC by publishing drop times and one needs to mitigate against proliferation of hundreds and thousands of free registrar tag applications.

The belief of Nominet is that very technically competent drop catchers probably won't need to pay for multiple drop catching tags but recognises that some will want to do so. If they are correct, why would anyone collude? If anyone technical competent can do what they require without buying more of a resource, why buy more of that resource? If Nominet are incorrect and it does benefit drop catchers to buy more resource, Nominet can control the price per resource as necessary yet allow those that wish to buy more of the resource as they can afford. There would however be no benefit in setting up more members vs. buying more resource connected to the same single member because no member receives any included amount of resource by default.

One concern where I am historically partisan over the past 20 years, is my dislike of any close or incestuous relationships between Registries and large industry companies like the big Registrars.

Click to expand...

A bit late given so many registrars and registries are owned by one and the same. Verisign isn't permitted to own a .com registrar given they operate the .com registry.

There is a real problem brewing, if the largest 5 Registrars of UK domains decide to requisition 90% of near deletion domains to make profit themselves (or at least the saleable ones). I absolutely believe that large company influence should be proportionate, and they should be kept at arm's length in any model of disposing of domains. No large registrar involvement in an auction platform. And rules to limit their ability to sell expiring domains on their own platforms. My preference is for Nominet to be the sole 'exit portal' for all expired domains. How that is enforced is admittedly tricky, but it needs working on.

Click to expand...

Why haven't registrars been taking over and auctioning domain names already? It's because they're not permitted to do so. The RRA very specifically takes care of this and permits them to do so in very specific and limited circumstances.

Nick Wenban-Smith said something similar, when he said he was "uncomfortable" about "gifting 90% of expiring domains to the top 10 Registrars" (I think it's fewer than 10 actually). Personally I think - given the history of the domain name industry worldwide over the past 2 decades - that this "arms length" policy should extend to major company representatives being kept off the Board. But I'm concerned that these policy changes may precipitate large Registrar moves to carve out profit for themselves from expiring domains before any money gets to Nominet's proposed charity recipients.

Click to expand...

The point of any Board is to have relevant experience on it. Large registrars obviously have employees with relevant industry experience particularly in the area of retail and wholesale domain name registration. It would be daft to think their right to be on the Board should or could be restricted. Doing so means that Nominet would lose the important contribution of expertise they can offer. When working for Nominet, they're bringing their industry experience but must think in the best interest of Nominet who are paying them to be there. They generally don't get paid by their other employer for the days away from the office when they're attending Nominet Board meetings.

Disagree about what specifically?

Someone wrote:

"Why haven't registrars been taking over and auctioning domain names already? It's because they're not permitted to do so. The RRA very specifically takes care of this and permits them to do so in very specific and limited circumstances."

The RRA didn't stop the large registrars mass-registering over a million .uk domains, without being asked to by the supposed 'registrants'. That was in breach of Clause B.1.9, Clause B.1.10, Clause 2.8, Clause 2.8.1, Clause 3.2, and Clause 3.2.3.

"The Registrar must promise us that in respect of EVERY transaction request you make: you have the authority of the registrant to make that request and... specific authority from the Registrant to fully commit them to all the terms of the contract or obligations with that request." (RRA 2.8 and 2.8.1)

When submitting transactions (RRA 3.2) "You must not request a transaction if... (RRA 3.2.3) "the Registrant you identify to us in the transaction has not instructed or requested you... to act on its behalf"

Nor if (RRA 3.2.6) "the service requested is one for which we require Registrants to enter into terms and conditions with us (e.g. registration of a domain name) and you have not received positive confirmation that they are aware of, and accept in full, the current terms and conditions... at the date of the request for it (the registration)"

Those terms and conditions are not insignificant: they safeguard the DNS against "unlawful" use, "the distribution of viruses and malware, phishing activity, or DDOS attacks".

Yes Mister, "The RRA very specifically takes care of this" as you say...................

Except if you go back to the earlier Nominet promotion, it facilitated Namesco and GoDaddy's subsidiary 123Reg to mass-register 100,000s of .uk names each... IN BREACH of the RRA... resulting in the disruption of the .uk process when the 5 years were up. And the Directors on the Board when this all went ahead, employees of which large Registrars? Namesco and GoDaddy.

Now, I have no personal view on the individuals involved, but I put it to people that it's really not a good look, when an agreed process gets messed up, and RRA rules get breached, and Nominet has created the context for that, and when it happens, Nominet leaves the large Registrars to police their own actions. In June 2019, just days before the 5 years were up, Nominet ran yet another free promotion which facilitated Fasthosts and Ionos1&1 doing exactly the same. It's not like Nominet didn't know what they were doing.

These were all domains which were meant to go to the public. It was rubbish policy anyway, because it achieved nothing, messed up agreed procedure, and justifiably got bad press. PR own goal for nothing. But more importantly, large registrars circumventing rules, and disrupting what had been undertaken for everyone.

So yes, I am sceptical about the influence and sway of large Registrars frankly, while remaining objective and facts-based.

They should be kept at arm's length - regardless of their experience and skills - as part of demonstrable integrity of process.

mcrick said:

The belief of Nominet is that very technically competent drop catchers probably won't need to pay for multiple drop catching tags but recognises that some will want to do so. If they are correct, why would anyone collude? If anyone technical competent can do what they require without buying more of a resource, why buy more of that resource?

Click to expand...

I'm confused on this point. My understanding is the can't just publish the droplists without the economical control, because they're worried about people creating free tags to pool resources. Understood. Then in the same breath, nominee are also saying that they don't think there'll be any benefit in doing so, so people won't bother.

davedevelopment said:

I'm confused on this point. My understanding is the can't just publish the droplists without the economical control, because they're worried about people creating free tags to pool resources. Understood. Then in the same breath, nominee are also saying that they don't think there'll be any benefit in doing so, so people won't bother.

Click to expand...

It is slightly odd and it hinges on whether everything is dropped at one specific time per day (like with the RoR release) or at individual times. With the introduction of drop times being public knowledge and so no need to query endlessly using the DAC, the current system would permit ANYONE to set up a free non member registrar tag and only pay £80 for any successful registration. There's no fee for failure. That clearly can't be permitted unchecked because some will consider they need to have multiple registrar tags to open many EPP connections even if those with better technical ability feel they could do it with one. Nominet accept people will collude memberships as they obviously have been doing and keeping trying to police that isn't sensible. Providing those that wish to buy more resource with the option to do so aims to remove the incentive for hundreds of likely proxy memberships created mainly to gain a resource allocation as is likely to have been done to date.

mcrick said:

keeping trying to police that isn't sensible.

Click to expand...

Can you reveal if they have policed it, have they taken any action against anyone in the past year?

Siusaidh said:

Someone wrote:

"Why haven't registrars been taking over and auctioning domain names already? It's because they're not permitted to do so. The RRA very specifically takes care of this and permits them to do so in very specific and limited circumstances."

The RRA didn't stop the large registrars mass-registering over a million .uk domains, without being asked to by the supposed 'registrants'. That was in breach of Clause B.1.9, Clause B.1.10, Clause 2.8, Clause 2.8.1, Clause 3.2, and Clause 3.2.3.

"The Registrar must promise us that in respect of EVERY transaction request you make: you have the authority of the registrant to make that request and... specific authority from the Registrant to fully commit them to all the terms of the contract or obligations with that request." (RRA 2.8 and 2.8.1)

When submitting transactions (RRA 3.2) "You must not request a transaction if... (RRA 3.2.3) "the Registrant you identify to us in the transaction has not instructed or requested you... to act on its behalf"

Nor if (RRA 3.2.6) "the service requested is one for which we require Registrants to enter into terms and conditions with us (e.g. registration of a domain name) and you have not received positive confirmation that they are aware of, and accept in full, the current terms and conditions... at the date of the request for it (the registration)"

Those terms and conditions are not insignificant: they safeguard the DNS against "unlawful" use, "the distribution of viruses and malware, phishing activity, or DDOS attacks".

Yes Mister, "The RRA very specifically takes care of this" as you say...................

Except if you go back to the earlier Nominet promotion, it facilitated Namesco and GoDaddy's subsidiary 123Reg to mass-register 100,000s of .uk names each... IN BREACH of the RRA... resulting in the disruption of the .uk process when the 5 years were up. And the Directors on the Board when this all went ahead, employees of which large Registrars? Namesco and GoDaddy.

Now, I have no personal view on the individuals involved, but I put it to people that it's really not a good look, when an agreed process gets messed up, and RRA rules get breached, and Nominet has created the context for that, and when it happens, Nominet leaves the large Registrars to police their own actions. In June 2019, just days before the 5 years were up, Nominet ran yet another free promotion which facilitated Fasthosts and Ionos1&1 doing exactly the same. It's not like Nominet didn't know what they were doing.

These were all domains which were meant to go to the public. It was rubbish policy anyway, because it achieved nothing, messed up agreed procedure, and justifiably got bad press. PR own goal for nothing. But more importantly, large registrars circumventing rules, and disrupting what had been undertaken for everyone.

So yes, I am sceptical about the influence and sway of large Registrars frankly, while remaining objective and facts-based.

They should be kept at arm's length - regardless of their experience and skills - as part of demonstrable integrity of process.

Click to expand...

Nothing you've said appears to directly address my point about the RRA being insufficient to deter registrars from auctioning domain names now, except in the limited circumstances they are permitted to do so. When the RRA was modified (2014) I believe one or more registrars did try auctioning everything on their tags or transferring expired domain names to customers who had purchased a backorder on it at their registrar but were quickly "talked out of it" by Nominet. Prior to the RRA changes some registrars were auctioning domain names because the previous RRA hadn't specifically addressed it. Evidence of all of this can be found on this forum.

Your issue with registrars registering domain names that were reserved under RoR for their customers was directly addressed 15th September 2017 here on the Nominet forum (requires a login - Nominet members only) in a 68 post thread by Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet Legal Counsel. Is this insufficient for you? If so, in what way?

Kelly Salter was elected to the Nominet Board 26th April 2017. She is also an employee of Namesco. James Bladel was elected to the Nominet Board 19th July 2018. He is also an employee of Godaddy. 123-reg was acquired by Godaddy in April 2017, or thereabouts.

Godaddy didn't have an employee of theirs with a seat on the Nominet Board in 2017. Namesco had only had an employee of theirs with a seat on the Nominet Board for the matter of a few month prior to the promotional period where Namesco registered domain names for their customers by exercising the ROR's.

At the time this mass registration first occurred I believe it caught many, including some Nominet Board members who weren't employees of retail registrars, by surprise. How can anyone plan for something that one doesn't anticipate occurring? I don't believe there had been any suggestion of registrars registering domain names for their retail customers by exercising RoR's in this way on AcornDomains forum prior. The thread cited above on Nominet's private member forum should offer those still interested some incite, as should searching AcornDomains forum.

Have you contacted any of the directors who were on the Nominet Board at the time by email or other means to ask them about what happened at the time and how they felt? If you have, what have they told you? If you don't know how to contact them, you may email Nominet and ask to be contacted. There should be no expectation that they should come directly to you if they don't know about you, or even for them to engage on AcornDomains, but you can find out who they are and contact them if you wish. Members regularly do. It's not a black art. Obviously it all began nearly three years ago so it may be water under the bridge in some respects, but clearly you still consider it bothersome.

Your suggestion that registrars registering domain names for their customers in the way some did "was rubbish" and "achieved nothing" can only be untrue. Some customers very likely elected to accept and subsequently renew those domain names after the free two years. Registrars couldn't have had the foresight to know which of their customers would have done so therefore registering en masse was the only was they could, or not at all as some may have preferred.

In later years clearly Nominet staff decided that they still considered the practice to be acceptable as there hadn't been any great problems with it in 2017. If it had been majorly problematic, Nominet would likely have stepped in and prevented it based on past experience. Nominet does trust the expertise of its ACP's (accredited channel partners).

When retail registrars contribute so much to the revenue of the registry why shouldn't some from their area of the industry also have access to seats on the Nominet Board? This is a specialist industry and Board members offer their expertise to Nominet when they take up those seats. Furthermore the idea of moving to one member one vote isn't credible. Look what happened with AuDA and membership stacking there? If it ever happened in .uk, just as with drop catching and the proliferation of memberships to do that is occurring now, I'd anticipate those with the most interest inviting all their hundreds of employees to become Nominet members too. If it came to it, plenty of interested parties (retail registrars and non retail registrars) could easily afford 1000 or 2000 x setup fee and annual membership fee.

Okay, to avoid further de-rail, I'm not rising to this. It's insanity. I'm talking to 'we all know it's you, Dave'. I may start a dedicated thread on this subject at some other time. To keep it simple: if Nominet can allow the RRA to be circumvented once, and I have demonstrated they did, consciously and deliberately, they may do it again. I believe large registrars have too much influence, and they need to stay and be kept at arm's length. None of that is personal to James and Kelly. The mass registrations were pretty much a disgrace and probably an embarrassment to them as well. I'll leave a little extract from one of my election videos. I think it says it all. I'm out.

Murray said:

Can you reveal if they have policed it, have they taken any action against anyone in the past year?

Click to expand...

They said today in the webinar that they have not been able to take any action.

Siusaidh said:

Okay, to avoid further de-rail, I'm not rising to this. It's insanity. I'm talking to 'we all know it's you, Dave'. I may start a dedicated thread on this subject at some other time. To keep it simple: if Nominet can allow the RRA to be circumvented once, and I have demonstrated they did, consciously and deliberately, they may do it again. I believe large registrars have too much influence, and they need to stay and be kept at arm's length. None of that is personal to James and Kelly. The mass registrations were pretty much a disgrace and probably an embarrassment to them as well. I'll leave a little extract from one of my election videos. I think it says it all. I'm out.

Click to expand...

You say some registrars circumvented the RRA in 2017 and Nominet legal counsel said differently back then.

At times when registrar(s) did breach the RRA by taking over expired domain names in 2014 (i'll find a link on here if it helps), Nominet did stop it. If Nominet hadn't stopped it, why wouldn't registrars have continued to take them over ever since? Nobody on this forum appears to have said such thing has been rampant and the first people to have noticed would likely have posted about it here. I am sure this activity would have been noticed.

It does appear you haven't made efforts to contact any of the board members at the time, or present, to find out more or you wouldn't be saying "probably an embarrassment to them as well". It's just sending some emails.

This is just sensible debating. Nothing about "rising to this" or "insanity".

Click to expand...

Watched both your short and extended video. Did wonder why no live contribution from you and it's not your voice speaking I presume. Does seem a pity you feel unwilling to do the live Q&A with others who'd receive the same questions as you. Saw your reasoning for it - because you think you might be attacked? If so it seems a bit of an over reaction and I don't know why you'd think that. Is it because of the blatantly obvious because there really isn't anything I feel you should have a problem with in that respect, if so. It's 2020. I am sure a great many would agree and don't understand why you don't.

gregfindley said:

View attachment 2890

Click to expand...

Not a very attractive photo. Saying that, seen his twitter one? Amazing what money can pay for.

Susannah defiantly does not mind having questions being thrown at her in a live environment. After all, she was a Mastermind contestant last year

lazarus said:

Susannah defiantly does not mind having questions being thrown at her in a live environment. After all, she was a Mastermind contestant last year

Click to expand...

Would have thought similar so doesn’t quite make sense but that’s what’s said in the extended version of the video and no live appearance in the video. Not everyone watches Mastermind.

Good grief. I'm an outsider candidate and I don't intend to have my valid candidacy 'ambushed' by Nominet insiders or their sock puppets. I find it fairly amazing that my candidacy is being critiqued publicly by one of Nominet's own Board of Directors. I suggest that's a bit inappropriate. I will run in this election on MY agenda, not yours or anyone else's. Did you criticise one of the other candidates for not submitting a video? No. And it was fine that they didn't if the rules clearly stated it was optional. And the rules did. In the same way, the rules clearly state that participation in Nominet's Q&A is optional. They offered that option. Even so, I told Nominet that if I was given 24 hrs notice of the questions, I could opt to appear. That was declined, which is fine by me. I also stated, in both my videos, that I will answer ALL the questions in the Q&A within 24 hours, and post them on my website for all to see, only I won't be limited to 2 minutes an answer. I am a reflective thoughtful person, who treats her candidacy seriously and wants to give serious answers. I choose not to "perform" in Nominet's show. That's my agenda. I'm not conforming. I'm serving notice.

In terms of transparency and willingness to put myself out there - well I am here, and I have sometimes said unpopular things, because I think independently. Other times people respect what I say. It will be the same in the Boardroom if or when we next meet. I call out bad practice. I praise good practice. But at least I am out here... where is everyone else?

No, it's not because I'm transgender, which seems to be what you're alluding to and I wish you didn't. I've nursed people for 10 years. Nobody cares. My gender is a non-issue. In fact it's irrelevant. And anyway, many people here probably watched me mess up on Mastermind. I don't play the victim because I'm not a victim - I'm privileged. The point is I've wanted THAT not to be the issue. You're the only one who's alluded to it. I want the principles and the integrity to be the issue. And they are. I am here, and people know I am Susannah Clark. I am not McRick. And people can vote for me, or they can not vote for me. Believe it or not, there are more important things in my life. But on this forum, I argue, I quarrel, I laugh, I do business. I am me.

To be honest, I'm not having a go at you, as a person. I've never met you. I'd just prefer you to respect that I am running, in accordance with the options Nominet offered me, and I choose to make a statement by not being there at the Q&A. I'm demonstrating that I'm not Nominet's shill. Whether I win, I am not arrogant enough to say, but I think I'll do well.

That's all. Back off. Maybe see you in October.