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.
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.