The Great British domain name rip-off: Overcharged .uk customers help pay for cheaper .vodka

Time for competition authorities to take a hard look at Nominet

We'd love to tell you but...

"Under the confidentiality agreement we signed, I can't go into the mechanics of the deal," Hawarth told attendees – an explanation he went on to use repeatedly when probed on any detail of the deal. "But over the full term of the contractual period, the deal makes sense."

Of course, as anyone who has spent any time in business will tell you, "over the full term of the contract" means that you make loss at the beginning in the hope that the deal will turn profitable by the end. Neither Nominet nor Minds and Machines will reveal the length of the contract.

On the question of profitability, Haworth skirted: "Whether it is profitable on day one, year one, year three, I don't really want to get into the agreements that we've got with Minds and Machines."

The issue with hiding behind confidentiality agreements, however, is that at the same time Nominet is offering what appears to be below-market rates to win contracts, the company has significantly increased the cost of .uk domains with seemingly no real justification.

In March 2016, Nominet increased the cost of .uk domains by an extraordinary 50 per cent, claiming that unspecified "cost increases" meant it had to push the wholesale price of .uk domains up from £2.50 per year to £3.75 per year.

At the same time, the company awarded itself the ability to increase costs further in future without having to either go through a public consultation or justify the increase in terms of cost-recovery. That price increase also came despite the fact that Nominet's financial figures showed an 11 per cent drop in operational costs.

In addition to raising prices, the company also embarked on a contentious plan to open up registrations under .uk, in addition to the previous third-level

Nominet introduced the change against fierce opposition and gave any owner the right to their .uk equivalent for two years – after which anyone could grab it. Millions of companies decided they needed control of both: a fact that was later heralded by Nominet as evidence of the program's success.

In just one year, then, Nominet managed to get a significant percentage of its 10 million domain name holders to pay three times what they were previously – from £2.50 to £7.50 – for the exact same service.

How was this possible? Because, under Nominet's frequently criticised corporate governance rules, voting rights are handed out proportional to the number of .uk domains that a member has, meaning that just three companies – all large registrar companies which sell direct to consumers – are able to effectively control Nominet's policies, and its board.

The end result has been an increasingly commercial entity that retains a monopoly over .uk domains because of its non-profit, public-benefit status. That monopoly looks increasingly as if it is being used as a cash cow to fund other activities.


Under pressure to explain the company's activities, Nominet's CEO and staff have drawn up what many feel is a false distinction: the company is only contracting to run other companies' back-end registry services, whereas with .uk it also runs the registration services.

According to Haworth's thinking, Nominet receives income from the .uk registry and then "invests that money" in new business. "We look at each new business on a case-by-case basis," he argued at the AGM. "Does .uk subsidise these efforts? No. We wouldn't take on a commercial agreement if we didn't think it makes commercial sense."

In a later follow-up to that question, Howard pushed the point again: "I would again stress the distinction between running back-end services and the full-service registry operation we run for .UK domains. For the latter, in addition to the technical infrastructure and registration systems, we are responsible for many additional services, including marketing, promotions, our DRS, customer service for registrants and outreach with the international internet community. Our pricing reflects this."

But other answers provided by Nominet board members appear to show that there is a significant degree of creative accounting going on inside Nominet to justify the low price it is offering to other companies to win contracts.

Next page: Assumptions

Narrower topics

Other stories you might like

  • FTC urged to protect data privacy of women visiting abortion clinics
    As Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v Wade, safeguards on location info now more vital than ever

    Democrat senators have urged America's Federal Trade Commission to do something to protect the privacy of women after it emerged details of visits to abortion clinics were being sold by data brokers.

    Women's healthcare is an especially thorny issue right now after the Supreme Court voted in a leaked draft majority opinion to overturn Roe v Wade, a landmark ruling that declared women's rights to have an abortion are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

    If the nation's top judges indeed vote to strike down that 1973 decision, individual states, at least, can set their own laws governing women's reproductive rights. Thirteen states already have so-called "trigger laws" in place prohibiting abortions – mostly with exceptions in certain conditions, such as if the pregnancy or childbirth endangers the mother's life – that will go into effect if Roe v Wade is torn up. People living in those states would, in theory, have to travel to another state where abortion is legal to carry out the procedure lawfully, although laws are also planned to ban that.

    Continue reading
  • Zuckerberg sued for alleged role in Cambridge Analytica data-slurp scandal
    I can prove CEO was 'personally involved in Facebook’s failure to protect privacy', DC AG insists

    Cambridge Analytica is back to haunt Mark Zuckerberg: Washington DC's Attorney General filed a lawsuit today directly accusing the Meta CEO of personal involvement in the abuses that led to the data-slurping scandal. 

    DC AG Karl Racine filed [PDF] the civil suit on Monday morning, saying his office's investigations found ample evidence Zuck could be held responsible for that 2018 cluster-fsck. For those who've put it out of mind, UK-based Cambridge Analytica harvested tens of millions of people's info via a third-party Facebook app, revealing a – at best – somewhat slipshod handling of netizens' privacy by the US tech giant.

    That year, Racine sued Facebook, claiming the social network was well aware of the analytics firm's antics yet failed to do anything meaningful until the data harvesting was covered by mainstream media. Facebook repeatedly stymied document production attempts, Racine claimed, and the paperwork it eventually handed over painted a trail he said led directly to Zuck. 

    Continue reading
  • Florida's content-moderation law kept on ice, likely unconstitutional, court says
    So cool you're into free speech because that includes taking down misinformation

    While the US Supreme Court considers an emergency petition to reinstate a preliminary injunction against Texas' social media law HB 20, the US Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday partially upheld a similar injunction against Florida's social media law, SB 7072.

    Both Florida and Texas last year passed laws that impose content moderation restrictions, editorial disclosure obligations, and user-data access requirements on large online social networks. The Republican governors of both states justified the laws by claiming that social media sites have been trying to censor conservative voices, an allegation that has not been supported by evidence.

    Multiple studies addressing this issue say right-wing folk aren't being censored. They have found that social media sites try to take down or block misinformation, which researchers say is more common from right-leaning sources.

    Continue reading
  • US-APAC trade deal leaves out Taiwan, military defense not ruled out
    All fun and games until the chip factories are in the crosshairs

    US President Joe Biden has heralded an Indo-Pacific trade deal signed by several nations that do not include Taiwan. At the same time, Biden warned China that America would help defend Taiwan from attack; it is home to a critical slice of the global chip industry, after all. 

    The agreement, known as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), is still in its infancy, with today's announcement enabling the United States and the other 12 participating countries to begin negotiating "rules of the road that ensure [US businesses] can compete in the Indo-Pacific," the White House said. 

    Along with America, other IPEF signatories are Australia, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Combined, the White House said, the 13 countries participating in the IPEF make up 40 percent of the global economy. 

    Continue reading
  • 381,000-plus Kubernetes API servers 'exposed to internet'
    Firewall isn't a made-up word from the Hackers movie, people

    A large number of servers running the Kubernetes API have been left exposed to the internet, which is not great: they're potentially vulnerable to abuse.

    Nonprofit security organization The Shadowserver Foundation recently scanned 454,729 systems hosting the popular open-source platform for managing and orchestrating containers, finding that more than 381,645 – or about 84 percent – are accessible via the internet to varying degrees thus providing a cracked door into a corporate network.

    "While this does not mean that these instances are fully open or vulnerable to an attack, it is likely that this level of access was not intended and these instances are an unnecessarily exposed attack surface," Shadowserver's team stressed in a write-up. "They also allow for information leakage on version and build."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022