123-reg transferring domains to UK3.com predrop?

[Rob_F]

I've noticed over the last couple of days that a few 123-reg domains that should have dropped were transferred at the last minute to UK3.com. All three were registered to different people so it seems highly unlikely that this is a case of individual owners releasing/transferring the domains to UK3.

Looks to me like there is an agreement between 123-reg and UK3.com Limited to release/transfer selected domains predrop?

The three domains in question are...

bigidea.co.uk – transferred but still registered to original owner.
infraredsauna.co.uk – transferred .
ukulele.co.uk – transferred but still registered to original owner.

Can someone at 123-reg please confirm/deny that such an agreement exists.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[namestrands]

I think nominet needs to nip this in the bud as it interferes with the natural order. I understand that there are new T&Cs at some registrars that allow them to take ownership of the domain after X days of expiration and I understand that Nominet is onboard albeit someone reluctant.

Are we going to go the way of the TLDs where the big registrars monopolise registrations and dropcatching?.. I think all registrars on here should ask Nominet to reconsider this practice and amend its Terms to prevent it from happening.

 

[monaghan]

I understand that some registrar's T&C's grant the registrar permission to do this if the registrant doesn't renew.

In my opinion, if all names are available first come first served, then all non-renewed domains should go via the published deletion cycle and not into automatic auction.

 

[GreyWing]

I understand that some registrar's T&C's grant the registrar permission to do this if the registrant doesn't renew.

In my opinion, if all names are available first come first served, then all non-renewed domains should go via the published deletion cycle and not into automatic auction.

I agree 100% with you, what I'd add to it is....

Regardless of what T&C's the registrars have with the customer, if a registrar then go onto Nom's website and state they are the registered owner before they register the name. So at the point of transfer of registrant they are committing fraud by lying to Nominet. They are obtaining goods by deception.

They may claim that they have an agreement with their customer, but remember that customer does not own the domain, only is the registrant at Nominet.

As I was saying yesterday to fagend, what they are doing is changing the records of the registered email in their customers control panel and going to the Nominet control panel and doing a password reset request. They can then login and initiate a transfer. It's clearly wrong and should be clamped down on by Nominet.

But if any registrar tries to defend this process then let's go one step further, why does it have to be last minute when they take it? Why can't there be a hidden clause (probably as this is) that states that if your domain ever has less than 500 days of registration left, the registrar can take it. If it is in 123-reg's contract with the customer, is that allowed? If not, what's the difference between that and what is going on other than a figure they have plucked out of the air as to when they transfer it.

 

[grantw]

Chris of uk3 is a member on here so maybe he'll confirm what's going on.

This is in 123reg's terms:

27.9 123-reg may from time to time change the registrar that a Requested Domain is held with, at its discretion and without notice to the Client.

As GW says though, regardless of registrar terms, ticking the box to say you're authorised to transfer a domain you don't own is very dodgy ground!

Did you ever get an update from Nominet on all this Rob, seem to remember you were talking to them about it?

Grant

 

[GreyWing]

.... duplicated

 

[Pred]

just noticed 123 are offering a backorder service too

 

[Systreg]

Noticed these 2 that were supposed to drop today are now moved to CHC yesterday:

mothersdaypresent.co.uk
mothersdaypresents.co.uk

And this one due to drop tomorrow has also been passed over:

moreno.co.uk

Proper fecking shabby ain't it.

 

[Rob_F]

Proper fecking shabby ain't it.

It is indeed. I blame Nominet for allowing this kind of dodgy practice to continue. They've known about it for ages and should have nipped it in the bud yonks ago. It reflects badly on them, and on the industry as a whole.

I should point out that I'm usually a big supporter of Nominet. IMO, for the most part, they run the .uk registry extremely well. This however, is just plain wrong.

- Rob

 

[namestrands]

Perhaps as members we should whip together a petition and submit to nominet to abolish such practice. It goes against the grain of fairness and is therefore anti-competitive.

 

[Rob_F]

Perhaps as members we should whip together a petition and submit to nominet to abolish such practice. It goes against the grain of fairness and is therefore anti-competitive.

I'd be up for that. In addition, I'm tempted to start writing to previous registrants of these domains to inform them of what is going on – with Nominet's number at the top. A load of pissed off registrants calling Nominet, or better still, a lawsuit or two, might be just the catalyst Nom need to put an end to this.

- Rob

 

[namestrands]

Complaint Submitted to them, mentioning this and other anti-competitive practices. I thought nominet were non-profit so I can see no logic in preferential treatment.

 

[Blossom]

I wouldn't mind an auction site for dropped domains run by Nominet (obviously there would have to be some kind of opt-in system so that there would be plenty of normal drops too).

 

[namestrands]

No No No.. an auction site again is anti-competitive. Nominet has a role and as a non-profit its focus should be on the internet community as a whole. For fairness the domains should drop a expected and not be held over.

A who industry is reliant on domains dropping on schedule, its not just the drop catchers, its the auction sites, datacenters etc.

You remove that and you remove jobs.

Certain TAG owners are deliberately circumvented fairness and putting the future of the secondary domain market at risk

 

[GreyWing]

No No No.. an auction site again is anti-competitive. Nominet has a role and as a non-profit its focus should be on the internet community as a whole. For fairness the domains should drop a expected and not be held over.

I know it's something close to your heart and it gets under your skin, but have you emailed Nominet and asked them to look into it.

 

[Blossom]

No No No.. an auction site again is anti-competitive. Nominet has a role and as a non-profit its focus should be on the internet community as a whole.

If Nominet's focus should be on the community as a whole, then it's fairer to have a transparent auction system open to all rather than a vague and veiled system of luck reliant on a comparatively small group of people.

If you're not highly familiar with the industry, you have to do a hell of a lot of digging to even find out how to get a name, let alone understand the literal practices of attempting to get the name you want. A lot of people assume that if a name isn't FTR it's not available at all.

 

[GreyWing]

If Nominet's focus should be on the community as a whole, then it's fairer to have a transparent auction system open to all rather than a vague and veiled system of luck reliant on a comparatively small group of people.

If you're not highly familiar with the industry, you have to do a hell of a lot of digging to even find out how to get a name, let alone understand the literal practices of attempting to get the name you want. A lot of people assume that if a name isn't FTR it's not available at all.

Blossom, we have just seen Nominets auctions in action though. They were not a pretty site, names hovered up into 5-6 domain warehouses never to be seen again unless someone bends over and takes a #*@!ing

 

[namestrands]

By that same argument perhaps we should have one company that carries out all plumbing or electrical work, or on organisation of mortgage advisors.

By having an industry that encourages innovation and tuning of skills is what capitalism is all about.

Ignorance is not an excuse. Furthermore how is it by having a transparent auction system would it be in the interest of the community? An individual can back order a domain for as little as £15, if it were an auction run with the exposure nominet has then it would be a case of who has the biggest wallets, and most likely it would be the same investors in the domain drop industry, which will in effect push the prices above what any individual could likely afford.

You therefore encourage capitalism in its extreme and market yourself out of the equation.

 

[Blossom]

Blossom, we have just seen Nominets auctions in action though. They were not a pretty site, names hovered up into 5-6 domain warehouses never to be seen again unless someone bends over and takes a #*@!ing

Ah yes, very true. The number of domains on offer was a big facotr, but you would have to have an excellent system in place to cope with so many domains.

An individual can back order a domain for as little as £15, if it were an auction run with the exposure nominet has then it would be a case of who has the biggest wallets, and most likely it would be the same investors in the domain drop industry, which will in effect push the prices above what any individual could likely afford.

Well, it's the same result with dropcatching anyway. Most of the time whoever gets the domain keeps it to sell on at a large price, often above what people can afford.

The GoDaddy auctions work pretty well I think. Obviously there are flaws and people buying to sell on, but it's not like all the prices are ridiculously inflated.

 

[GreyWing]

Namestrands, Capitalism is good, auction system are good. However because we have supply source if a small group take control over a large commodity with only one source then it invites other sources to spring up through either innovation (new extensions) or regulation from Government.

That's my personal view against auctions, I'm not against it on grounds that those with the most money should not put their money where their mouths are. I'm against it because if they do then they could put us all in a position where one of the two above options comes true.