Nominet announces new policy consultation for expiring .UK domains

[Murray]

keeping trying to police that isn't sensible.

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

 

[mcrick]

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.

 

[Siusaidh]

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.

 

[davedevelopment]

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

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

 

[mcrick]

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.

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".

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.

 

[mcrick]

View attachment 2890

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

 

[lazarus]

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

 

[mcrick]

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

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.

 

[Siusaidh]

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.

 

[Derek]

I think if you want to dip your snout in the trough of free money then some level of scrutiny or critique of your candidacy needs to be expected.

 

[lazarus]

I think if you want to dip your snout in the trough of free money then some level of scrutiny or critique of your candidacy needs to be expected.

I get the sentiment of your analogy but I disagree in this case. Susannah has talked more sense in the past few weeks then some NED's have done, full stop. NED candidates have come on here spouting the usual, and you never see them again after they get elected.

Susannah does not need a webinar to be "scrutinised" she has much more of an audience on this forum. Ask her a question and I am sure you will get an answer. I don't really think she needs to "perform" in a live Q/A to gain votes either, she already has the backing of the community.

 

[Siusaidh]

I have the backing of *some* people. I don't have the backing of others. And that's fine. I think this thread has got a bit serious. I think David was actually being almost light touch and discreet, **and at least he's here**. None of this is likely to be big deal. This thread is about far more important things, concerning a critical point in the domain system in the UK. Greg Findlay's post was funny though. We need to lighten up and try to go easy on each other, but be ruthlessly analytical about the how to build a system that works, and counters cheats, and operates with integrity. Goodnight!

 

[Siusaidh]

I think if you want to dip your snout in the trough of free money then some level of scrutiny or critique of your candidacy needs to be expected.

I expect it, but I'm not a dancing monkey. The Q&A is optional. And I will answer all the questions anyway... thoughtfully. If that loses votes, that loses votes. It's my candidacy, and I'll stand the way I choose to. I do actually know what I'm doing, and I know my target electorate. It hinges on about 50 registrars. Again, Goodnight!

 

[mcrick]

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.

Factually you are both a Nominet member and a member of a secondary market orientated domain name forum. Three of the other candidates aren’t Nominet members, I believe.

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.

Why you think it would not be appropriate for any existing members of the Board, who may also be Nominet members with voting rights, and who may be concerned for the future stewardship of the company to critique your claims, which stem from one main issue that was address almost three years ago by Nominet staff, is something you haven’t actually explained. I myself can’t think why they shouldn’t comment if they so wanted, nor any other member who has the right to vote.

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.

I am disappointed that the other candidate you reference didn’t submit a video which I acknowledge is optional. You submitted one yet didn’t appear to feature in it, audibly or in vision. Perfectly acceptable but it will naturally draw questions about why you might have chosen not to appear.

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.

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.

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?

Do you consider AcornDomains the only vehicle for canvassing members? I doubt it.

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.

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. Some people, quite often some of the British but others as well, are too polite to ask but don’t doubt that some don’t wonder, don’t discuss it and don’t have questions which are quite natural, normal and acceptable to have.

Transexuals I’ve spoken with both in the past, and those I meet every so often in day to day life, often seem quite comfortable to reference their gender in passing. That might have something to do with age and culture.

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.

I haven’t noticed anyone on this forum suggesting you were a victim or played the victim but it’s good of you to mention that you aren’t one and don’t play one.

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.

Good for you. You might be a better candidate than at least some of the others. I certainly have no issue with your choice to stand but I take issue with some of what you’re said for the reasons already aforementioned.

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.

Are you a predominately a single issue candidate? Are you commercial with your domain name activities or is it only a hobby?

I get the sentiment of your analogy but I disagree in this case. Susannah has talked more sense in the past few weeks then some NED's have done, full stop. Time and time again, NED candidates have come on here spouting the usual, claiming to be "for the community" and you never see them again after they get elected.

Susannah does not need a webinar to be "scrutinised" she has much more of an audience on this forum. Ask her a question and I am sure you will get an answer. I don't really think she needs to "perform" in a live Q/A to gain votes either, she already has the backing of the community.

Do you not want to name those NED’s? Are they incommunicado? Have they not got functioning email? Have you not got functioning email in order to try to contact them? Some might have other things they’d prefer to be doing than taking the inordinate amount of time it requires to engage repeatedly on a forum.

 

[timter51]

I haven't got a fucking clue who's who or what's going on any more, not sure I ever did. When is gravy train getting derailed?

 

[davedevelopment]

@mcrick I think you're adding value to these discussions with your knowledge of nominet and I myself and in sure a few others appreciate it. However, I think it would be better for everyone if you kept your condescension, philosophy and pompousness to yourself.

 

[Lovekraft]

Yet another important thread completely derailed by David Thornton. He has the cheek to criticise Susannah for not having appeared in a video (full of underlying attempts at insults) yet he hides behind yet another fake username and doesn't have the guts to admit who he is, even though we can all tell a mile off.

 

[Lovekraft]

I haven't got a fucking clue who's who or what's going on any more, not sure I ever did. When is gravy train getting derailed?

No set date, they touched on timelines in the webinar but were unable to give anything specific. Consultation in August, about another month to consider the options and however much time will be needed to implement them.

 

[Murray]

However, I think it would be better for everyone if you kept your condescension, philosophy and pompousness to yourself.

It went beyond that, it was actually very nasty

"perhaps as you’re not used to being challenged"
"you’re uncomfortable with yourself."
"you're unable to cope"
"you dominated discussion in birmingham"
"because you didn't make an issue of your gender you clearly have an issue with it" (paraphrasing)

etc

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

 

[webber]

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. Some people, quite often some of the British but others as well, are too polite to ask but don’t doubt that some don’t wonder, don’t discuss it and don’t have questions which are quite natural, normal and acceptable to have.

Transexuals I’ve spoken with both in the past, and those I meet every so often in day to day life, often seem quite comfortable to reference their gender in passing. That might have something to do with age and culture.

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