Nominet domain expiry policy

[DarrenTSO]

If you read the policy papers, a large part of this issue stems from some of the larger registrars complaining that making any money with respect to .uk domains in the current marketplace can be difficult. Basically, the margins are not good compared to other TLDs they can sell.

Partly, this is because the .uk marketplace is very competitive (every Nominet member pays the same price for .uk domains, whether they have 100 domains or 100,000), but also this is because of a lack of allowable commercial activity at the expiry end of a domain registration, unlike .com/.net/.org and other TLDs where registrars can not only charge redemption fees (something like $150 per domain with Enom) but also auction off expired domains or warehouse them. As part of a successful .uk ecommerce eco-system, it is important that registrars continue to push .uk as equal to a .com, and don't get led down the path of pushing alternative TLDs because of the profit margins on other TLDs.

The issue at the moment is that some registrars (albeit a small number) already do some of the above -whether they are officially allowed to or not. A big point I liked with the recent proposals was the idea of presenting the registrant with "key facts" of what they're signing up to, and an explicit policy of what is and isn't allowed with respect to the expiry policy, rather than the 'grey area' we have at the moment.

 

[monaghan]

There's nothing preventing a registrar from charging a different renewal fee dependant on when the domain is renewed. There's also nothing making them sell at cost (or near enough cost).

Whilst I appreciate that there are financial issues and businesses want to maximise profits, these are individual business decisions as to how to manage the profit margin and not expiry related registry wide policy decisions.

The "big registrars" are at liberty to suggest a pricing policy revisit to the board rather than hijacking the expiry policy which after all is to ensure that those who want their domain registration to continue are given every opportunity to renew. What happens to unwanted domains is a different story, drop catch, auction, registrar retention and so on need to be addressed in the same policy so that all parties are round the same table.

 

[DarrenTSO]

I'm not an advocate for the auctioning or the redemption periods personally, but I understand the motivations behind why some people might want them.

What I do think is good is a more explicit declaration of what is and isn't allowed post expiry.

 

[Marcoose]

Not that my opinion is going to sway anyone's decision at Nominet but I have sent it over to them anyway. Hate the thought of 123 being given a Namejet style lease to print money.

 

[sdsinc]

It seems to me that possible conflicts of interest should be avoided whenever possible.
The prerelease market is such that if you have quality domains your registrar has an incentive to screw you. Like for example messing up with the renewal reminders in the hope that you actually rely on them to renew your domains.

We also know for a fact that there are registrars that are ethically challenged.

You cannot rely on your registrar to be a trustworthy custodian for your valuable digital assets.

Some registrars like register.com already overcharge for late domain renewals, even though the domain is not in redemption but in grace renew period, so there is no additional cost incurred to them really.

The reason is that the expired auctions are much more lucrative than domain registrations and renewals, where margins are low (<$1 for discount registrars).

The prerelease game quietly circumvents the redemption process that was designed to protect registrants.
That being said, I benefit from the prerelease auctions as a buyer yet I am not feeling very comfortable seeing the same practices spill over to ccTLDs.

I think that:

1. registrants must be clearly informed and aware of what happens when they do not renew their domains
2. registrants must be able to opt out or decide which domain(s) are allowed to be auctioned
3. it would be just fair that the registrants receive a share of the profits !

If I ran a gTLD registrar that is the way I would operate. Give my clients an option to cash in on their unwanted renewals. Be completely upfront and transparent.

 

[Marcoose]

It seems to me that possible conflicts of interest should be avoided whenever possible.
The prerelease market is such that if you have quality domains your registrar has an incentive to screw you. Like for example messing up with the renewal reminders in the hope that you actually rely on them to renew your domains.

We also know for a fact that there are registrars that are ethically challenged.

You cannot rely on your registrar to be a trustworthy custodian for your valuable digital assets.

Some registrars like register.com already overcharge for late domain renewals, even though the domain is not in redemption but in grace renew period, so there is no additional cost incurred to them really.

The reason is that the expired auctions are much more lucrative than domain registrations and renewals, where margins are low (<$1 for discount registrars).

The prerelease game quietly circumvents the redemption process that was designed to protect registrants.
That being said, I benefit from the prerelease auctions as a buyer yet I am not feeling very comfortable seeing the same practices spill over to ccTLDs.

I think that:

1. registrants must be clearly informed and aware of what happens when they do not renew their domains
2. registrants must be able to opt out or decide which domain(s) are allowed to be auctioned
3. it would be just fair that the registrants receive a share of the profits !

If I ran a gTLD registrar that is the way I would operate. Give my clients an option to cash in on their unwanted renewals. Be completely upfront and transparent.

Positive rep!

 

[Marcoose]

Does anyone know when the consultation ends and when a decision will be made on this? I'm thinking about providing a service dependant upon drop catching remaining the same and would like to know asap.

 

[Bailey]

Without even knowing the timescale - it's going to be a 6 -12 month implimentation at least. So if you've got something in the pipe - i'd run with it. Don't think i'd be assigning any 'significant' new capital to a project though

 

[Marcoose]

Without even knowing the timescale - it's going to be a 6 -12 month implimentation at least. So if you've got something in the pipe - i'd run with it. Don't think i'd be assigning any 'significant' new capital to a project though

Yeah it's going to require some investment so would be good to know their stance. Supposedly the consultation ends in September so will hopefully hear something shortly after that.

 

[monaghan]

Final day for comment! - http://www.nominet.org.uk/policy/issuegroups/current/domainexpirypolicy/

 

[tifosi]

Comments sent & received!

Biggest conflict of interest I can see in the draft framework - which seems mostly sensible - is the ability of a registrar to auction a domain post 30 days while the registrant still has the right to renew the domain upto release. There's an inherent confict there if the small print of the registrar includes the automatic right to do this. A big no-no imo. There should be an explicit breadcrumb trail for this with written post 30days authorisation by the registrant.

S

 

[monaghan]

The problem is that some registrars already have the right to auction hidden away in the T&C's

 

[Bailey]

Comments sent & received!

Biggest conflict of interest I can see in the draft framework - which seems mostly sensible - is the ability of a registrar to auction a domain post 30 days while the registrant still has the right to renew the domain upto release. There's an inherent confict there if the small print of the registrar includes the automatic right to do this. A big no-no imo. There should be an explicit breadcrumb trail for this with written post 30days authorisation by the registrant.

S

That again is similar to to how it works in the GTLD world, (albeit the expiry periods vary with the different registration services)

It does seem Nominet would lean towards the current gtld model. As despite it's critics it does work. I think those of us that can stand outside the "Catchers Circle" realise the UK system is likely to completely stagnate ( If not already) due to virtually all dropped domains now going to these core groups. The one good thing about 'Registration services" getting hold of the drops Is going to be their motivation to sell (ie get the domains back out there what ever the margin) whereas the current catching system really does only favour hoarders and those looking for Click-income.

If it moves to this model then obviously the one thing 'Registrants' don't want to be doing is having your domains spread across a number of registration services with various models of "enticement of the reselling or auctioning"