Nominet announces new policy consultation for expiring .UK domains

[Murray]

Poo is something I'm expert at, as a nurse, and to be honest baby poo is inoffensive - it's more like mustard and hardly smells at all. On the other hand, babies and sleep...

Anyway, congratulations, and all of you stay well.

Strongly disagree

When my niece was a baby I used to see my sister sniff her nappy like it was nothing and go "oh yes she needs to be changed"

I was holding her one day and thought hmm there is a smell and without thinking about it I sniffed the nappy

That was a huge mistake lol

 

[Derek]

https://domainlore.uk/CarSpring.co.uk £7200 that drop sold for.

I'm not saying this catcher cheated, I don't know who caught it.

But £7200 pays for a lot of snide accounts and a decent cheating budget if you can break the rules and grab yourself some domains like this. Which is why you'll never be able to stop cheating.

 

[Murray]

@mcrick what time frame would Nominet be looking to implement any changes? a month, 3, 6, 2021?

 

[mcrick]

@mcrick what time frame would Nominet be looking to implement any changes? a month, 3, 6, 2021?

This consultation is a month. I speculate that it takes another month to sift through and conclude with an outcome but this depends how much else is going on. Perhaps that gets presented sometime in September. The economically controlled access option is easier for Nominet to implement because it’s based on their own systems. I suspect they’ve already trialled the technical feasibility of doing it. An auction would probably be put out to a third party perhaps with an expression of interest period, not necessarily someone involved in the domain name industry ending up operating it. If it was as late as 2021 I’d be really wondering why.

Are you wondering whether to stump up for the annual membership fee next month?

 

[Murray]

Are you wondering whether to stump up for the annual membership fee next month?

Thanks

No I'm interested in the mass .uk drops in the first half of September

 

[KarlM]

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/

 

[Lovekraft]

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.

 

[ian]

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.

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

 

[KarlM]

Yea auction model was definitely talked about the most....

 

[Lovekraft]

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/

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.

 

[KarlM]

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.

 

[mcrick]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[Siusaidh]

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.

 

[ian]

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"!!!

 

[ian]

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).

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

 

[mcrick]

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[mcrick]

Disagree about what specifically?

 

[Siusaidh]

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.

 

[davedevelopment]

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?

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.

 

[mcrick]

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.

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.